TEACHERS' SALARIES.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXXVIII, Issue 11822, 27 November 1901, Page 7

TEACHERS' SALARIES.

TO THE I'll TO it. ' Sir, The remarks of " Snorter" anil others are too well known to require corroboration by me or my pen. If my memory serves me aright, the same institute of town teachers were afraid some years ago to take up the question of equality of holidays for fear they would be "levelled down'' to four weeks of midsummer vacation nil round, and equal length of holiday terms was got by the representations of one or two individual teachers, who placed the matter clearly before a section of the Board s members. Other reforms, too, were obtained in similar manner. Judging by the barren and fruitless results of their labours, common-sense people naturally want to know for what purposes our educational institute exist;-. The Salary Commission would appear to have been fruitless in its labours if we may judge by the very general dissatisfaction ( they have evolved. Had statesmanship been r. strong quality among the Commissioners, a very different result would have accrued. Even a spirit of justice would have done wonders with a salary scheme that was ostensibly meant to bo a "na-

tional" scale of salaries for a large and numerous band of ' national" educators. But both qualities are conspicuous bv their entire absence. A general " levelling up" should have been their first care, instead of which we find that " to him that hath shall be given, and from him that hath not shall be taken away, even that which he hath," iia3 been the predominating idea. The blots in the scheme are too glaring and too numerous to need recapitulation here. Salaries of Ins than £150 (a living wage only) 're unaltered, or else reduced. Country salaries of £200 are increased, and so on ad infinitum. Why should a first-assistant ,£240) get three times as much as the seventh ar eighth (£80) in our large schools? In common justice, for equally arduous labours :ould those salaries not have ween ranged from £100 to £200? Now a few points for consideration by the institute and our legislators, and for our real statesmen to wrestle with. in New Zealand polities the primary topic for consideration is the successful settlement of every back block. Good schools there is one of Lao very strongest factors in the cise. Hence the cost of education in new settlements ?ou!d fairly and honestly be tartly chargeable to the Lands Department. Let us say it one-fourth, or even one-third, of the cost. If schools tinder 20 carry i, saiary of £6 per head of overage attendance and oneFourth of the cost (about £30j0) be charged against the Land Department, the greatest stumbling-block to the " national" salary scheme is at once removed. Nest, by means af tins saving, graduate "eho-ds of 20 to 100 average. so that salaries will bo increased in decreasing ratio upwards till £200 is reached—to wit, £120 for 20, to £140 for 50, to £160 for 50, to £180 for 70. to £200 for 100. Reduce no salary of £2uo to £300, but effect a graduated (plight) reduction on £300 upwards, etc. Next, eauuiise. assistants in the manner I have indicated, viz., £100 to £200, instead of £80 to £240. i'ne disnarity in this instance is too great to permit the c!aim that it is a '"eoloaial" scale of salaries we have 'before us. Until such inequalities are "levelled tip," and the right of (nearly) equal pay for equal work is recognised, country settlers and teachers will never rest nor sit down .beneath the gross neglect, contumely, and injustice that our "educational fathers" fancy is ;>od enough for us. If they think we win " swallow the leek" in such calm manner they have got tho "wrong sow by the nig."— am, etc., ■Lo'J.ntkviiax.