VIGOROUS PROTEST

Evening Star, Issue 21130, 16 June 1932, Page 5

VIGOROUS PROTEST

EDUCATION DEPARTMENT ATTACKED “ CALLOUS " REPLIES RESENTED ANOMALIES IN SALARIES AND ALLOWANCES The attitude of the Education Department in relation to teachers’ salaries and house allowances and its reply to representations from the Otago Education Board on this matter were the subject of caustic comment at the meeting of the board this morning. “ CALLOUS OFFICIAL REPLY.” Mr James Wallace presented the following resolution;— This board strongly deprecates the callous, official nature of the department’s reply. The department should have been conversant with the position, but on its attention being drawn to the matter it should have taken immediate steps to have rectified an anomaly resulting in such a, glaring injustice. The anomaly has been in existence since the first cut fourteen months ago, and the injustice has been intensified since the second cut two months ago, yet the department has made no attempt to rectify the matter. All that is required is an Order in Council providing that for the purpose of the cut the value of a residence shall be deemed to be the same for a married man as for a single man. As > the department has not seen fit to move in this matter, this resolution be forwarded to the Minister, with the request that he take early action. “ ESSENCE OF STUPIDITY.” The Secretary (Mr Carrington) stated that married head teachers of grade 111. and married sole teachers of grades I. and 11. in schools without residences were entitled to a house allowance of £SO p.a., as against £4O payable to the unmarried teacher in grades 11. and 111. and £3O in grade I. Contrarywise, when a residence was provided its value was assessed at £SO for married men and £4O and £3O respectively (according to the grade) for single men. The cuts in salary ■which had been made applied to house allowance or the value of a house, with the result that a married man in these grades suffered a deduction from his salary on £SO, while the single men paid on £4O and £3O respectively. The result was that these married teachers received smaller salaries than if they were single. When a single teacher in one of these schools with a residence married, instead of receiving an increase, his salary was actually reduced. It was possible for a teacher, on his marriage, while occupying the same position, to receive £ls Is less than ho did when single. The board wired the department regarding this as follows; “ Is it intended that a married sole teacher with residence, say grade 1., is to suffer deduction on £SO, while single man pays on £30?” and the department replied, “ Residence is assessed £SO grade I. married sole teacher.”

Mr Carrington added that where a residence was not provided, a married head or sole teacher in, say, grade 1, was entitled to a house allowance of £SO p.a. Alternatively, when a residence was provided, its value for a married teacher was assessed also at £SO, although for the single teacher at only £3o—the house allowance rate for a single man. While there was no cut, these different values applicable to the same residence did not much matter, but with the coming of the cut and its application to the value of the residence (the amount coming off salary), a most absurd and unjust position laid been created. In many cases, by assessing the house at £SO, instead of at £3O, the married teacher’s salary was made high enough to come within the second cut of 10 per cent., while the single man got off with the lower percentage provided by the Act. Thus, it was possible for a single man, on his marriage, to find he must suffer a deduction of as much as £ls Is more than when, as a single man, he occupied the self-same house. To continue this method of assessing the residence when, by so doing, it resulted in a loss to the married teacher, was the essence of stupidity and an example of centralised control divorced from the actualities of life and out of personal touch with individuals. “OUT OF ALL REASON.” “ The reply is out of all reason and the sooner these officials are told that they must pay attention to such representations in a sane manner the better,” said Mr Wallace. “ I am attacking the department, and attacking it deliberately. It has had to go back on its opinions before, and will have to go back on this. The great defect in the Department to-day is that there is no one there with practical experience of administration of a board. They have plenty of theories, but cannot carry them out. If our communication had been sent to the Minister we would have had a different reply altogether, but the Department is beyond reason.”

A letter was also received from the Nelson Board pointing out these anomalies and asking the Otago Board to bring the matter under the notice of the Minister.