TEACHER’S APPEAL

Gisborne Herald, Volume LXVIII, Issue 20630, 11 August 1941, Page 7

TEACHER’S APPEAL

OBJECTION TO SERVICE SCHOOL COMMITTEE ACTS Championing the attitude adopted by a teacher in his appeal to the No. 3 Armed Forces Appeal Board on conscientious grounds, Mr. R. A. Gilbert, a member of the Central School Committee, New Plymouth, caused a long discussion at a meeting of the committee. A letter from a parent was read in committee. Almost immediately a difference of opinion arose between Mr. Gilbert and the majority of members, but finally the following motion was adopted, Mr. Gilbert being the only dissentient—“ln connection with a letter received from a parent and in view of the published statement allegedly made by a teacher at the Central School, at a hearing before the Armed Forces Appeal Board, ‘that he would not use force against a man attacking the children in the playground as it might endanger the life of the assailant,’ opportunity be given the teacher to show reason why the Central School Committee should not ask the Taranaki Education Board to take the necessary steps to cancel his appointment as a teacher at the school.” The chairman, Mr. C. T. Steffenson, quoted the standing orders of the Taranaki Education Board to show the procedure that should be adopted when a committee had a complaint against a teacher. Mr. R. A. Gilbert: I consider this matter has nothing to do with the committee. It is a question of a teacher’s conscience only. The chairman: But this teacher has said he will not help or assist to protect a pupil under his care. : The headmaster, Mr. W. L. Wagstaff: It has been laid down time and- time again and upheld in courts of law that a teacher must exercise such' reasonable care and control of a child as if he was in the position of its parent. Mr. F. S. Nicholson: I admire a. man for sticking up for his principles, but I do not think this man’s attitude as shown in his replies to the appeal board fits him to be in charge of 30 or 40 children. Mr. Gilbert moved an amendment that the letter be received and that no action be ta~ken. The chairman ruled the latter part to be a direct negative, and as the amendment: was not altered it was ruled out of order.