EDUCATION.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CXV, Issue 16606, 18 July 1914, Page 15

EDUCATION.

TOPICS FOR TEACHERS AND OTHERS. WHY NOT A UNITED FRONTP (By Lux.) ""Whoso would bo a man must be a Nonconformist. He who would gather immortal palms must not bo hindered by the name ot goodness, but must exploro if it bo goodness, iothing is at last sacred, but tho integrity of your own mind. Absolve you to yourself, and you shall have tho suffrage of tho world. . . . I am ashamed to think how easily we capitulate to badges and names to large societies and dead institutions. Every de- • cent and well-spoken individual affects and sways mo more than is right I ought to go upright and vital and speak the rude truth in all ways."—-Emerson

The charge has often been levelled against teachers that they do not utilise the ordinary avenues of public opinion for placing their position before the country. Indeed, some people have mistaken this reserve for a confession of weakness, and have sought to impose galling restrictions upon the profession. Of course, everyone will ay what an eminently respectable calling teaching is, yet the very person vho in one breath extols this respectable profession in the next will pointdly assort that the teacher is the paid ervant of the public, and as the ;erving-man of the latter he must iceds do as that many-tongued master bids. Now the teacher's position in society is unique. To him is entrusted the .upbringing of the future citizens of the State. To him have been delegated the young of both sexes, and to a largo extent it lies with him if these little people grow into rational and efficient men and women. The teacher, therefore, has a great responsibility placed upon his shoulders, a responsibility that taxes what might be called his personal powers to a greater extent tlian any other trade or profession. Personality is his finest asset, but initiative is an important factor in his make-up. He is at once a counsellor, controller and director, but he is denied the passion of the advocate and the sway of the autocrat. He is, in short, hardly the person that the public, who do not understand his position, his mission and his ideals, should try to hedge in with majoritymade formulas, or encompass with measures manufactured by a referendum. But the teacher himself is a good deal to blame for the attitude taken up by a certain section of the public in regard to his profession. For too long no has been content to mourn in private and express his woes to his fellow teachers. This, however, is not the manner in which reforms are brought about. Agitators have received a bad name, but thoso who are ever condemning the agitators and vowing the country is being ruined by them should reflect that many of the enlightened laws under which they live, many of the privileges they enjoy, have been brought about by men whom people in the past were pleased to term agitators. Teachers have accepted in silence for many long years conditions against which average tradesmen would revolt. Underpaid teachers and understaffed schools have become by-words, and the ordinary person has come to imagine that this Is the unchangeable order of things. True, there are signs of an awakening. The Teachers' Institute is doing good work, and apathetic members of Parliament, towards election time, are beginning to realise that, if teachers have nothing else, they still have votes. There is, however, much to be done. Joint action has shown other trades and professions the way to better pay and better conditions of labour, and joint action will do the same for teachers once they get rid of that foolish delusion that such action is unbecoming and beneath the dignity of the profession. It is not necessary here to call such action trade unionism, for there are still teachers who would throw up their hands in dismay at the mention of the words. Let us at least be like the doctors, adopt the machinery of other combinations of workmen, but preserve the chastity of our profession by masquerading under a high-sound-ing name. Respectability is a very nice name, and to speak of respectable persons is, no doubt, a correct and commendable way of referring to one's friends, but respectable institutions have a habit of getting out of the line of evolution. How is it that people aro still being tied hand and foot by terms? At the present time some teachers are hiding behind that meaningless combination of words, " the dignity of the teaching profession?" Is it dignified to enduro in silence conditions that threaten to bereave the profession of the most capable members of the rising generation? Is it a mark of dignity for the teacher to have his conscience fettered so that he may not think aloud in front of his class? True, we have not reached the latter stage yet, but we are aware that if we do not show more vigilance and aggressiveness there are people only too ready # to circumscribe tho freedom of our minds. Do you know what a trades union would do if one of its members was boycotted or dismissed on account of his religious belief or unbelief? Would they tolerate such a 6tate of affairs for a single dav? Rather they would protest in a body against such injustice, and if their protests were unavailing they wculd—many will be horrified at the use of this distinctly disrespectable word in an education column—strike I Of course it is not to advocate Guch a drastic proposal as a teachers' strike, that attention is drawn to the weanon ever at hand to a compact and united body of men. It is simply quoted for the purpose of arousing teachers from I a too complacent conformity to restric- ' tions that threaten to usurp the liberty of the subject. There are teachers, too, who will say that since they are servants of the public thev must accept unreservedly any conditions that are imposed upon them. But if a man happens to serve another man, or the State, it surely does not follow that th--» man who serves is bound body and soul to the man or the State by whom he is envploved. An individual in the service of the State gives his services to the State for a certain amount of remuneration, and this remuneration should be in exact ratio to the individual's servioes. Any restriction the State imposes over and above this remuneration is unjust and should be resisted strenuously by tho individu? 1 On what grounds, then, have toacbr any excuse for refusing to unite and prompt n compact front to all external enemies? Why should they delay longer in letting the country hoar their collective voice?