TEACHERS' SALARIES

Evening Post, Volume C, Issue 87, 9 October 1920, Page 9

TEACHERS' SALARIES

TO THE EDITOR. Sir,—The Hon, the Minister for Education, in traversing recent correspondence in the columns of The Post re teachers' salaries, dopvecates the use of "exaggerated nonsense," and suggests that writers should get their "facts right." Whether or not the statements made in my letter of 18th September are "exaggerated nonsense " I leave your readers to judge; that they were based on some very real and painful facts is unfortunately only too true. Nor does the Hon. the Minister condescend to refute them. On the contrary, he sidesteps with considerable agility. Whether teachers' salaries in New Zealand compare more than favourably with those in other countries is quite beside the question. It is notorious that teachers the world over have always been badly paid. Even if the Minister is right it only serves to show that New Zealand is the "best of a bad bunch."

But the object of my letter was to tihow not only that teachers at present are badly paid in comparison with Public Servants in other departments, but also that their conditions of employment are unfair and very discouraging, tending to discontent, restlessness, and inefficiency. However, the Minister now specifically says that "he hopes to be able to prove conclusively that the new scale will not be inferior to that of any other part of the world; and if anything will provide a somewhat higher rate of remuneration than any othor branch of the Civil Service; this notwithstanding • the new and extremely liberal scale proposed for the Civil Service." If the Minister and the Education Department will be able to show in the new schedule that an expenditure of £300,000 is going to do this for 5000 teachers, they will have achieved a financial operation of which they may well be proud, and for which they will receiye the thanks of every member of the teaching profession.—l am, etc.,

HEADMASTER,