TEACHERS' SALARIES.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXVII, Issue 8376, 2 October 1890, Page 3

TEACHERS' SALARIES.

TO THK EDITOR,

Sir, —The less work bhe more pay is tho rule in employment under the Boar'! of Education, — a very unsatisfactory rule, you will admit, for all except the lucky ones. In a school of, nay, 70 of attendance, there will be the six standards to be taught by a head and an assistant teacher, who receive the salaries of £11") Hiul i'7o a-year each : in a school of 700 of attendance there will be just the six standards—no more—to be taught by a head toucher and about twenty assistants and pupil leaders. The head teacher of this school will receive a yearly salary of about £4.30, and the assistants' salaries ranging from £225 (until lately £2.30) down to £60 or £70 a-year. Let me now compare the work done by the two head teachers. Iti the former case the head teacher is obliged to teach by himself the 3rd, 4th, sth, and Gth standards, and hk assistant the Ist and 2nd standards, together with the primer class ; in the latter the head teacher teaches no standard at all. Does any town teacher teach a standard ? Nor is he obliged to do so, hi« duty being , supposed to consist in seeing that the staff do the teaching—not a very exhausting or difficult task surely. Yet, for doing so much he receives the salary of £450 a-year, while the other —his equal, mark, as a teacher, and who works a great deal harder—receives only £175 a-year. Now, turn to the assistants. In the smaller school a, single assistant is obliged to teach the first and second standards, and sometimes a primer class in addition ; while in the larger school there are two or three assistants for each standard. What a vaab difference in the work of the one assistant engaged single-handed in teaching one standard, and at the same time constantly supervising the other two classes, and the work of an assistant (with a junior assistant helping) teaching but one standard, or a port'on of a standard ? Yet the harderworked assistant receives only £70 salary. as against £225 received by the first as*sistant in the larger school. In this, as in the former case, the ranks of the compared teachers are equal. Let me pursue the salary question a step further. In ten years the do-nothing or do-little head teacher receives £4500. and the hard-worked teacher, —his equal, £1750, —yielding a difference of £2750, rather a "gross sum, ■' as Sir John Falstaff would say. This £2750, if put to interest, simple interest even at (j per cent, would yield £165 per annum, which added to the yearly salary of £450 brings his yearly income to £b'ls as against £175, the income of the other teacher, who is in no way inferior to him and who has to work harder. Disparities of that or similar extent could be indefinitely adduced ; and all resulting' from the regulating of salaries upon favouritism instead of merit. All fair-minded persons will agree with Mr. Udy in abolishing the odious system of favouritism, and substituting merit instead ; for if salaries are not regulated upon merit, they must, of course, be regulated upon favour, no middle course being possible. 1 intended to touch upon other matters ; but enough for the present. I am, &c., Junius.