TRAINING COLLEGE

Evening Post, Volume CV, Issue 150, 29 June 1928, Page 11

TRAINING COLLEGE

APPOINTMENT OF PRINCIPAL ■f STATEMENT BY DIRECTOR A statement replying to editorial comment in "The Post" in reference to the appointment of- a. principal of the Wellington Training College has been forwarded to "Tho Post" by the Director of Education (Mr. T. E. Strong). Tho statement is as follows: — "I feel I cannot allow your leading article on/the. appointment of Principal to the Wellington Training College pass without comment, since it gives an incorrect view of the situation. You state that the proposed regulation'dealing with the method of making appointments to training college staffs 'deprived the education boards of. powers hitherto vested in them.' This is quite incorrect. , Ever .since training colleges were established on the present basis the boards controlling them have not had the. power to make an appointment „to the staff until the Minister has approved of the selected.applicant. All the education board could ever do was to recommend an applicant to the Minister. . There is no doubt at'all that this, is a wise provision,.and it has.in several, instances prevented the: appointment -of unsuitable persons to responsible positions in training colleges. The same provision applies to appointments, of principals of technical schools . and junior high schools. It is obvious that if the Minister decides that the applicant the board recommends is not strong, enough for a certain position, the board should make another recommendation, and tins' is.exactly what, boards have, done up to. the'present: time.- .It' was never anticipated1 that- a- board •. would, refuse to carry out.the obvious intention; of the regulation. The proposed new regulation did not take away any power the board had under the old regulation, but was intended to prevent any appointment, including .. the present appointment, being held:up indefinitely."You are quite correct in saying that 'the qualifications of an :expert, officer cannot best be determined by newspaper discussion,' but you aro quite wrong in saying that 'there is no sound general reason for withholding Ministerial consent to the appointment ('selection' is the correct word) made by the education board.' The Department has studiously avoided parading the shortcomings of any applicant for a position in the service, and. this consideration for the feelings of the applicant in the ease' under discussion . has apparently led you, .ami no doubt others, to suppose that the Department has no sound reasons for advising the Minister not to approve the board's' selection. The Department's advice was based on the .considered opinion of its expert inspecting officers, and was supported by the late Director (Mr. J. Caughley)N The Department considered'the board's selection _an unwiso one, and not in the best interests of the training, college. The" board; was therefore advised to cast the net more widely by re-advertising in order to ascertain whether it would not be possible to secure a wider selection. It is not at all unusual for boards to do this. In fact, the Wellington board has followed this practice itself in the case of important positions in the teaching service. The-fact that no in-' specting officer supported the board's choice was surely sufficient reason why it should do as the' Department suggested, namely,':■■■ re-advertise the .position more widely." $ ■!.:.■■: