OTAGO TEACHERS SORE

Evening Star, Issue 17957, 2 May 1922, Page 3

OTAGO TEACHERS SORE

bisgrepant mmm aoaimst THEi. FURTHER PROTEST CONTEMPLATED For many years the State school teachers of Otago have endured the grievance of unequal grading, and their indignation at being rated ns of less professional value than their brethren in other parts is be dowsed into heat by the appearance in the ‘ Gazette ’ of the list for 1922. Right from the start of the grading system the marking of the Otago inspectors has been so relatively severe as to place the Otago teachers as a body lower than the teachers of the same_ grades in other provinces. When the first grading list came out it was found, to the astonishment of all concerned, that the heart masters of the higher-grade schools in Otago wore not placed equal to the teachers in corresponding positions in Auckland, Wellington, and Canterbury: and this discrepancy has in the meantime extended to all grades, and apparently become?. permanent, the results being that the teachers feel quite angry under a sense of injustice, and are gradually coming to the belief that if a man desires advancement in the teaching prolession he must move North; whilst observers from the circumference, noting from year to year that the Otago teachers are low in the list, may be led to the strange belief that Otago, the province which gives the dominion its doctors and master lawyers, and generally loads in education, pays for that pre-eminence by suffering a blight in its’ primary school teachers 1 These are matters that the teachers in Otago are talking about in plain and fibrous English. The facts cannot be challenged. Take, as an example, grade VII. head masters. The best grade V.U. man in Auckland is graded 4; the best grade VII. man in Otago is graded Id. Each of these men holds the same certificate ; both arc longservice men; both are highly-succcssful head masters—yet there is a difference of nine marks between them. Why nine marks difference? Why any difference,'' Teachers, cannot discover the reason, and nobody has ever ventured to give it. tf one man had graded those two the result of his grading could he argued for. It could be said, at any rate, that this one man was the person authorised to weigh up the two teachers, and that in his judgment, after seeing the men and Hour work, one was nine marks better than the other. Suck a deliverance would 'he hare} to assail. But no man who knows them both has graded them as they are graded. No man has had the opportunity of comparing them. .fears ago the inequality was mostly in comparisons between Otago and Auckland. .Nowadays it is Otago as against the whole of the dominion. The 1922 list shows trial the Canterbury assistant teachers have received an average increase of seven marks and the Otago assistants an average increase of four marks. Here is the full analysis:

Other examples of the same low marking In Otago could be given if necessary, but the facts are admitted and generally known. Perhaps it is not so commonly known, yet it is the truth, and not to be wondered at, that some teachers who have come from the North to positions in Otago have refused to fill them when they found l that a severer standard of grading was adopted down here. Loss of prestige and the consequent humiliation is the prime factor in moving our Otago teachers to protest from time to time. But it must bo remembered that the unfairness hits them in the purse as well as in status. The scheme is not only a dominion grading scheme, but also a dominion promotion scheme, and it operates not only prospectively bub immediately, since a man's salary partly depends upon his position in the grading Jist. What IB the remedy? Obviously it is not in conferences between the inspectors of the various districts for the purpose of making a common standard of judging, for such conferences are established and held annually, and the want of uniformity still gives rise to vexation. It is quite manifest that those' conferences are useless for the purpose of grading. It is also pretty plain that the Otago inspectors’ system of marking is relatively conservative and harsh in the sense of demanding impossible qualifications. Some of the aggrieved teachers take a quite deepairing view of the position. They teem to think that the personality of the inspectors is an unconquerable bar to reform. Others, also despondent, declare that there never can be anything like uniformity in a grading list that is compiled by trying to value mathematically things that do not submit to value by such a process. Ae one teacher puts it, “No one would think of grading poets or clergymen by figures—the qualities that go to make genius are not computable in such a way, and why should teachers bo so appraised?” One suggestion from a more hopeful teacher is 'worth reproducing. Ho says : “My personal opinion is that the best man in each district in any particular frade should be classed ns equal to the est man in every other district, and that the other teachers should be graded down from this.” Instinctively the first, thoughts of an .aggrieved man turn to his right of appeal; and such a process is available, being (specifically provided for in regard to New Zealand teachers, bub it is in this case robbed of value by being applicable only to the district, to which the appellant belongs. He may challenge his placing by comparison with that, of another man in the same province, but has no right to ask lor an equalising with those of otherprovinces. In the circumstances the only course open is to protest and protest. Otago teachers are now discussing the taking of that step. They are not disposed to sit quietly for ever in an oppressive shade. Such is the position to-day. In this article it is stated from the point of view of the injured party, and merely indicates their grievances, in outline, so that the man in the street may get some idea of what they are complaining about. A systematic and! detailed statement, of their case will no doubt be presented if it is decided, to protest formally once more, a, step which is almost sure to be taken.

15 marks Canterbury. 0 Otago. 0 14 marks 2 1 15 marks 1 0 12 marks ... o 1 11 marks 0 G 30 marks 2 1 9 marks 9 0 8 marks ... 14 .1 1 7 marks ... 21 4 6 marks ... 24 4 5 marks 9 13 4 marks ... 12 27 3 marks ... 5 16 2 marks 0 4 1 mark 0 3 106 77