Moving Teachers Costs Money

Manawatu Times, Volume LIX, Issue 7470, 22 May 1934, Page 7

Moving Teachers Costs Money

SEQUEL TO EXCLUSION OF FIVE-YEAR-OLDS Per Press Association. NELSON, Last Night. '•That, the board draws the attention of the Minister of Education to the high cost of removal expenses of teachers transferred owing to a fall in grades of schools, due to .the exclusion of five-ycar-oids. The cost at present appears to be much in excess of the alleged saving.” This was a resolution passed by the Nelson Education Board to-day as a result of a discussion in which the savings effected and the transference of those affected in the Nelson area were pointed out. Remarks by Minister Resented Replying to remarks made by the Minister of Education (Hon. E. Masters) in regard to the exclusion of (ive-vear-olds from schools, the secretary of the New Zealand Educational Institute, in a statement, says:—‘‘We consider that the Minister is attempting to cloud the issue by shifting tho focus of public interest from the children to the teachers. ‘‘We strongly resent the statement that teachers have not been ‘straight and honest.’ From the inception of tho legislation the institute has drawn intention to the effects of the legislation on both the children and the teachers, especially in so far as it is depriving .hundreds of rationed teachers of permanent employment and choking the channels of promotion for those in permanent employment. ‘‘This aspect of the five-year-olds question has on several occasions been put before Mr Masters in a perfectly straightforward manner. It is an in controvertible fact that this legislation is one of a series of special measures aimed at teachers’ salaries, in addition to the two cuts imposed on the general body of public servants. “Because our institute has represented this aspect of tho question, it is surely unfitting the dignity of a Minister of the Crown to infer that our representations on behalf of the children are insincere. “Mr Masters’ abuse of the teachers is quite unwarranted and appears as an effort to bolster up a case which even he is beginning to realise as cxtrcmeiv weak. The situation is really ironical in that the Minister has been making the most unconvincing attempts to defend what was obviously and admittedly an economy measure, on the ground of national health and welfare. We

can supply direct evidence from New Zealand sources to disprove any such assertions. “Mr Masters is alone in the British Empire in excluding children under six years from schools as an economy measure. In New Zealand this method of economy was proposed and rejected in ISS7 and again in .1901, and our most far-sighted educationists have expressed themselves definitely of the opinion that such ameasure would not be in the interests of either the children or the schools.”