APPOINTMENT OF TEACHERS

Evening Post, Volume XCIII, Issue 98, 25 April 1917, Page 7

APPOINTMENT OF TEACHERS

PRESENT SYSTEM CRITICISED BOARD DEC IDEsN AGAINST ALTERATION. " " The method of appointing teacher* as ■ * at' present adopted by the Wellington . Education Board was mentioned and criticised by Mr. T. Forsyth at this- '. morning's meeting of the .board.,. In. '"- accordance with notice Mr. Forsyth moved:— '< "That an ' appointments committee be set up to consider all applications for appointments and to report to the board ; the cpmmittee to consist of the executive and the senior inspector." ■ ' Speaking in support of his motion, Mr. Forsyth said that he felt they ought to give a more and better consideration . to the appointment of teachers than had been the case in the past. The appoint- ," * ment of teachers, he claimed^ was tha . . most important function the board was called upon. to exorcise. The personnel of the teachers was the mainstay of the educational system, and a lot of attention should be given to it. Appointments were • made on the lines of his suggestion in Auckland and Canterbury, and in those places the system had been ' found to work satisfactorily. At present almost all the other business of the Wellington board was done before appointments were dealt with. True, to adopt his suggestion, would mean the expending of a little more time, but the!', matter was of such importance as- to" thoroughly warrant that, not alone in • the interests of the board but 'also of ' the teaching profession and the community. t . i Mr. W. Allan seconded the motion pro forma, but indicated that he was/ going to vote against it. He could not • agree, .he said, that the matter of appointments did not get fair consideration and held that the present system was doing remarkably well, the full board having an opportunity of criticising the appointments, and sometimes, but not often, altering them. If the matter were to be left in the hands o£:. tho executive, as suggested, tho country- ■ members of the board would be' exclud- - cd. The board's present system was. ■satisfactory, and if Mr. Forsyth thought ■ that by his proposal he was going to sacrifice the teachers, h« was gloriously mistaken. Always there was fault found . by the teachers, and if the proposal were ■ carried they would have teachers " but-' ton-holing the members of the .executive, and surely this would not be desirable^ Mr. A. W. Hogg opposed the motion, and- expressed his appreciation .of the ; working of the. existing system The. board had got two divisions, country • and urban members, and the carrying of tha proposal might mean differences." The new executive also, he held, was agravo mistake. If the resolution were' " passed he felt it would be a resolution, • of condemnation of the old members —a. slur on the members of the ;board' through all its history. Mr. G. F. London supported themotion. The country members, he had been led to believe, had desired that tlio, inspector should make the selection by reason of his better knowledge of the qualifications 'of the applicants, but he could, not believe that the members of, tho board would not be of assistance to the inspector by reason of their delibeVa- ' tions in camera. Who, anyway, waa the responsible authority? „ A member: The inspector. Mr.'London held that it was not the" •'; inspector alone, but with the men appointed to represent the people on thei ,- board. There was, he added, no reason ' to fear that button-holing by teachers— already in existence —should be increased by Mr.. Forayth's proposal. Members, it seemed, came there intent on doing a certain line of duty, but shirking the most important duty of all—tho proper appointment cf teachers. , Mr. A. Mackay said ha agreed with' the importance of tho motion, but he.,, would have to vote against it, believing" that to carry it would be a backward step. If appointments were left to the ■ Executive, he contended that any recommendation brought down must bo carried, as the executive was a majority . of the board. .- .. „ „ •- In opposing the mot ion,,, Mr. B. A."' Wright pointed out how, in the great majority of instances, the applicants . ' were entirely unknown to members, and' expert advice as to their qualifications • was needed. The executive, he held," should not be in the majority on the board. The Chan-man (Hon. J. G. W. Aitken);. Hear, hear. Mr. J. Kebbell said he desired, to endorse all that had been said against the proposal.' In doing so he referred to the, fact that at last meeting of the executive,., only three members were present, and that might happen again when appointments were being considered. Mr. Forsyth, in reply, said that he, , had frequently seen a dozen separate ap- . plications put through by the board in" a . quarter of an hour. The inspectors un- ' doubtedly did give a- lot of time to the matter, but the board should make the appointments. . . The Chairman": This is new matter, •' > 1 Mr. Forsyth. As to the time taken in putting through appointments, I am sure "no one has taken notice of the time ■ occupied. Sir. Forsyth: Well, I state deliberately, again that j-r — The Chairman: But I will not allow you to say it again. \Mr. Forsyth, continuing, denied that his motion would convey any slur on old ' members of the board.

The motion, on being put to the meeting, was lost by six votes to- two.