TEACHERS' APPEAL BOARD

Evening Post, Volume C, Issue 23, 27 July 1920, Page 10

TEACHERS' APPEAL BOARD

THE REDUCTION EXPLAINED,

Further details of proceedings at the sitting of the Teachers' Appeal Board in Auckland last- week to hear appeals by Auckland teachers against their position on, the grading list were given byMr. J. Caughley, Assistant-Director of Education, on his return from Auckland yesterday afternoon. The board comprised Messrs. J. W. Poynton, S.M. (chairman), C. B. Munro (Auckland teachers'' representative), and Mr. T. B. Strong (chief inspector of schools), as the Department's representative. Mr. J. Caughley, Assistant Director of Education, and Mr. E. K. Mulgan, senior inspector of the Auckland district, were also present. On behalf of the appellants—there were 162 "valid appeals—.\lr.' A. J. O. Hall, assisted by Mr". E. H. Taylor, fully presented the arguments against the standard reduction made in the Auckland grading, to secure an approximate uniformity with the standard of grading in the remainder of the Dominion. This enabled the case for the appellants to be stated in the ablest and fullest manner, and saved repetition of the same evidence by the majority of the appellants.

Mr.. Caughley supplied information which showed that practically all the suppositions and assumptions on which the institute's case was based were without foundation. The reduction was made on the unanimous decision of a conference of all the senior inspectors, and in conformity with the finding of the Education. Committee of Parliament. It was also shown that the extent and distribution of the reduction so ordered were left entirely to the discretion of the Auckland inspectors, and that the Department had recorded the result exactly as supplied by the inspectors.

As the reduction in the first instance was perfectly uniform in the groups affected, the appeals were virtually against the judgment of the Auckland inspectors, who, starting from the new standard as a basis, awarded increased efficiency marks of varying extent to some teachers, and retained other teachers on their former grading on the new basis.

Appeals against the justice or uniformity of the reduction were unsuccessful. Tie evidence brought forward by successful appellants (23) was that their efficiency had increased to a greater extent than had been recognised by the inspectors, or that some circumstances, or facts had not been known to the inspectors at the time of grading. Practically all the decisions of the board were unanimous.

When the sittings concluded, Mr. C. R. Munro, the teachers' representative on the Board of Appeal, thanked Mr. Poynton and Mr. Strong, the other two members, for the patience and courtesy which, they had shown to appellant teasers, and also expressed to Mr. Caughley the appreciation of the teachers at the impartial manner in which he had supplied information to all alike, at the tactfdl way he had explained misunderstandings, and had assisted materially in the hearing of the appeals. In all there were 189 appeals out of 1062 teachers graded in the Auckland district. The number of appeals from the rest of New Zealand was about 130 out of 3092 teachers there graded. The latter eases will be heard at the various Education Board centres. •