The Evening Star SATURDAY, JULY 9, 1910.

Evening Star, Issue 14414, 9 July 1910, Page 6

The Evening Star SATURDAY, JULY 9, 1910.

On more than one occasion wo ha 7o reminded our read*? rs that the Education Department is one of the few branches of the Public Service that is not directly revenue-producing, that the expenditure incurred in the administration of our eAication system is large and everincreasing, and that, for these and Other cogent reasons, the position of Minister of Education in New Zealand is a difficult and not altogether enviable one. No doubt, because of the cost, he often hesitates to introduce what he considers to be very desirable reforms. As the present Minister has so often said: “It is all a matter of money.”

Educational Reform.

Fortunately, in this country, education is not regarded from tho point of view of party politics. Members of Parliament of every shade of political opinion, as well as the taxpayers generally, recognise and readily admit that too much money can hardly be spent upon the physical, mental, and moral training—the character - building—of our children. All that they ask is that the Minister in charge of this Department shall exercise wisdom and prudent economy in his expenditure, and that, in return for the money spent, ho shall guarantee a high state of efficiency throughout the Education Service. We believe that our education system will compare favorably with that of any other part of the British Empire; but, as we have before asserted, not even its greatest admirer, nor its most ardent supporter, will deny that it has some serious and many minor defects that require to be remedied. The aim of those now at the head of affairs seems to be to establish gradually in this Dominion a system of education absolutely free, from the Kindergarten to the University, and everyone who has at heart tho welfare of New Zealand will do well to lend a hand in the realising of this splendid ideal. The first essential to success in such a system is to have an adequate supply of qualified teachers. This supply will be forthcoming only when proper provision is made for the education, training, payment, appointment, and retirement of teachers. So far as the education, training, and payment of teachers are concerned, much has been done during the past ten years to improve mattery, but as regards the appointment and promotion of teachers, the methods adopted in most of our Education Districts are little short of scandalous. We have before asserted, and we here reiterate, and will continue to reiterate the statement that, in our opinion, this luck of any system in the appointment and promotion of teachers is mainly responsible for tho unpopularity of the Education Service with the young men of this country. We aro well aware that the question is surrounded by difficulties, which, however, are not insurmountable, and aro probably no greater than those faced and overcome by the , Royal Commission of 1901 that took up the question of teachers’ salaries and formulated the famous Colonial Scale. And, if need be, a Royal Commission will have to be set up to deal specially with “ the appointment and promotion of teachers,” and, incidentally, to review tho working of our whole 1 system of education. In this article we intend to deal with tho “retirement” and not with the “appointment and promotion” of teachers. The latter is too big and important a subject to be set aside lightiv. It will, however, force itself upon the attention of all right-thinking people in tho near future, and when the time comes we hope to bear a part in the battle. No educational reform of recent years has had such far-reach-ing and beneficial effects as the establishment of a Teachers’ Superannuation Fund, by which retiring allowances are provided for teachers at certain specified ages or after certain periods of service. Men may retire after forty years’ service, or at sixty-five years of ago; women, after thirty years’ service or at fifty-five years of age. Unfortunately, in tho Teachers’ Superannuation Bill no machinery clauses were inserted under which tho retirement of men at sixty-five could be made compulsory. Several Education Boards, however, got over the difficulty by making a regulation calling upon all male teachers and other officials in their service to retire upon reaching tho age mentioned in tho Act. With women teachers the position is different. As wc have pointed out, women teachers may retire after thirty years’ sendee, or at fifty-five years of age (it was fifty years of age under the 190.5 Act). But no provision has been made for their compulsory retirement, and the consequence is that though most women gladly retire at, or shortly after, the optional age, some few hold on to their positions for thirty-five, forty, and even forty-five years. It surely goes without saying that any woman who has given forty years of her life to public school teaching has not only earned a rest, but that, if she will not voluntarily retire, pressure should ho brought to bear that will compel her to make room for a .younger woman. The matter really rests with Education Boards. All that need he done is to give to such teachers throe months’ notice of the determination of their engagement. If Boards neglect to carry out a duty they owe to the children in charge of the women to whom we have referred, and to the younger teachers whose promotion is blocked, then Parliament must bo asked to amend tho Act by making tho retirement of women teachers compulsory at a spcrifietl aye. As a matter of fact, there are two points that demand the immediate attention of Parliament. Between January 1, 1996, the date when the first and very illiberal scheme came into operation, and October 10, 1908, when the present uniform scheme was inaugurated, a number of faithful pioneer teachers, who had done magnificent service to the State, retired on allowances not more than half those provid.d under tho later Act. Wo claim, on behalf of these teachers, that, as a matter of the barest justice, they should have been paid the more liberal retiring allowance from tho date of the coming into operation of the Act of 1908. They, however, do not ask this; they simply ask that from January 1 next the increased allowance should be granted to them. The annual cost would be trifling, and in the course of a few years it would cease altogether. The other class of teacher on whoso behalf wc appeal arc those who did not become contributors to the fund established in 1995, and who are on that account debarred from becoming “ original ” members under the 1908 Act. We contend that any teachers who were permanently employed at January 1, 1906, and who arc now willing to pay their contributions from that date, plus 4 per cent, interest, should be allowed to join the fund under those conditions. These few defects in an otherwise admirable piece of legislation should be brought under tho notice of the Parliamentary Education Committee, with a ' view to the introduction of a simple amending Bill of two or three clauses. The Prime Minister has only to be shown that certain teachers are being treated unjustly, and that, without materially weakening the fund or adding to the payments by the State, these injustices can be removed, to ensure the introduction of the necessary amending Bill. We had hoped to. refer briefly to several other matters of more than passing interest—such as scholarships, continuation classes, trade classes, etc.—but these

must be left to a future article. Li the meantime, we trust that Education Boards will lose no time in toying serious consideration to the question of retiring women teachers who, by failing to take advantage of: the Superannuation Fund, are blocking the way to the promotion of younger teachers, who are growing tired of waiting.