APPOINTMENT OF SCHOOL TEACHERS.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXXVIII, Issue 11604, 19 March 1901, Page 3

APPOINTMENT OF SCHOOL TEACHERS.

■' : i, ■ TO THE EDITOR. ■ ? J 1 ' 1 "/' 6 method of appointing teachers beS'l>i V m ° St °J 13 boards being neither conduce to the efficiency of the service nor consistent With justice to the .candidates, it » very desirable that : a re form should .be effected. Instead of enlarging on,.the subject in this letter, I send you a printed copy ; of a paper read by me at the meeting-of* the Southland branch of the Teachers Institute in June last, with the request that you will either review it or : reprint such portions of it as you think most important. A few of the boards do pay attention to the; classification and rank of candidates. For instance, the Auckland Board, though occasionally sending, more than one. name to the school committee, never sends the names of candidates of unequal rank.—l am, etc., _ ~ Samuel Hodgkinson. Invercargill, March 8, 1901.

. Dr. Hodgkinson (who is well known as having been a member of the House of Representatives) was for many years a member of the Southland Board of Education. Some time ago Dr. Hodgkinson read a paper on the appointment of • school teachers before the Educational Institute of Southland, from which we make the following extracts: — ~: '

The • reformed method of appointment adopted by the Southland Board about two years ago, is the same as that , which has been in operation in Wellington for many years past, and it is undoubtedly the legal and proper method. The Executive Committee of the board, of which three constitute a quorum, nominate one candidate for appointment and consults the school committee as required by law, by sending to it the names of all the candidates, with their respective classification and testimonials. Unless the school committee can show just and reasonable cause to the contrary, the full board confirms the choice of the Executive Committee, and appoints its nominee. But no method, however good it may be in theory, can work well in practice unless it is well and rightly administered. With a view to ascertain how the new method was being administered I obtained 'leave ' to examine the minute books at the education board's office. The result of my examination was far from being satisfactory, for it showed that the old evil practice of depriving school teachers of the full value of their certificates, by disranking them, was still' going on to an extent not ■ very much ' less than under the old loose way of appointment.

My examination extended over just two years, from May 6, 1898, when the new method came into operation, to May 6, 1900. During that time appointments were made to 54 school positions, for which there were 649 candidates. To 25 school positions, for which there were 252 candidates, the one of highest rank, or equal in rank to any other, was nominated find appointed. But to 29 school positions, for which there were 397 candidates, the one of highest rank, or equal in rank to any other, was not nominated and appointed; but one of inferior rank was, and was put over one or several others who, in some cases, were higher by three or four ranks. The number of candidates disranked in each case varied from one to seven, the average for the 29 positions being about two and; a-half, and the whole number of these supersedings, or disrankings, being 70. So far as my knowledge of the law goes, it seems that the central Department of Education at Wellington cannot at present control the patronage of the education boards, and the Public School Teachers' Incorporation and Court of Appeal Act, 1895, and the Amendment Act of 1897 provide only for cases of dismissal or suspension of teachers. It seems to me that there is no reason why the Act or Acta should not be so added to or amended as to include cases of . appeal against disranking candidates for appointment, and ignoring the value of their certificates. As no appeal could be. made without the sanotion of a corporate society of public school teachers, and•': as such societies would no ' doubt . be.; anxious to'; main-

tain the dignify and honour of- the teaching ;,'■-": profession, there would be no risk, of their espousing the cause of an unworthy or incompetent teacher. But if, any one think* that some less noble motive i* needed, 1 may add that the society would .be rcspon-. sible for the costs if the decision 01 tuo