SCHOOL COMMITTEES.

Manawatu Herald, Volume LIII, Issue 4871, 16 February 1933, Page 2

SCHOOL COMMITTEES.

WIDER POWERS SOUGHT

AMENDMENT TO ACT,

WANGANUI BOARD OPPOSES IT

[Chronicle.]

By five votes to four, the Wanganui Education Board decided yesterday to protest against a clause in the Bill framed to amend the Education Act, which gives powers to school committees to suspend teachers for neglect of duty or failure to obey any reasonable commands. The board was actuated by the belief that such power should lie retained by boards and not by committees, which at present have suspension powers •only in respect to those teachers whose conduct is immoral or who grossly misbehave. Mr. J. K. Hornblow considered that the proposed amendment was not going too far Committees, members of which were on the spot, knew what was going on in the schools and were in close touch with teachers.

“The method of electing school committees must be strongly amended before anything like that is done.” said Mr. J. Aitken. “The method of election is altogether too vague and too loose to invest committees with the power to suspend teachers for refusal to obey what tliev call reasonable commands. What a committee terms reasonable might not be so.” While he did not wish to decry school committees, he considered that what the Bill proposed was too drastic, stated Mr. ,T. S. Tingev. Such happenings as warranted suspension were better reviewed by an independent body —the board. Tn some cases it would be hard to find committees- acting with the calm judgment that was necessary in these cases.

Mr. R. Dukeson said he opposed the amendment for a number of reasons, but mainly because it invested school commissioners with the same power. In such cases one man would have the right to suspend a teacher. That was too drastic altogether. “T am going to oppose the amendment for the simple reason that no good reason has been shown that it is necessary,” said AW. AT. If. Oram. “The boards employ the teachers and the commands given to a teacher must be the commands of a board, not. a committee.” Colonel Whyte saw no reason why the committees should not have the power suggested. They were elected bodies and had the confidence of the electors.

Mr. Tingev: Is it not often that we find, in- small localities, that perhaps the chairman, or members of a committee, have the teacher “set?” What calmness of judgment can -any teacher in that position get in such circumstances?

Air. Hornblow: The Act itself says distinctly that a school committee, subject to the jurisdiction of the board, shall have control of the school. Certain things which should not be done are often done and the committees, who are on the spot, should have wider power, but any action taken is subject to review by the Board. It ’will make the teachers sit up and take notice of the fact that committees are something more than hewers of wood and drawers of water.

It was decided to protest against the clause, a motion to do so being carried by five votes to four. (For: Messrs Hemingway, Oram. Tingev, Aitken and Dukeson. Against: Messrs Ilornblow, Benefield, Whyte and Coleman).