TEACHERS' CODE

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXI, Issue 21912, 22 September 1934, Page 12

TEACHERS' CODE

CASES OF DISMISSAL FILLING THE POSITIONS ATTITUDE OF INSTITUTE EDUCATION BOARD'S CRITICISM [BY TELEGRAPH —OWN CORRESPONDENT] CHRISTCHURCH, Friday A clause in the professional code of the New Zealand Educational Institutej suggesting that a teacher should not accept a position from which a member of the institute had, in the opinion of the executive, been unjustly dismissed, was strongly criticised at a meeting of the Canterbury Education Board to-day. The following motion, of which Mr. I{. Wild had given notice, was carried unanimously:—"That the board expresses its concern at clause No. 1 of the professional code of conduct as drawn up by the executive of the New Zealand «, Educational Institute in "National Education," to come into operation on January 1, 1935, and asks the executive to reconsider that paragraph of its code with a view to its withdrawal on the grounds that State school teachers, above everybody, should set an example of unhesitating obedience to the law of the land and not, as in this case, arrogate to a select number of themselves authority in the way indicated."

The clause referred to was among those in which actions were declared to be unprofessional. The clause stated it was unprofessional for any teacher to apply for and accept a position from which, in the judgment of the New Zealand Educational Institute executive, a member of the institute had been unjustly dismissed. Plenty of Protection

Mr. Wild said members of the teaching profession were peculiarly well served in their positions. If a complaint was lodged by a parent the teacher was protected by the school committee, by the inspector and by the board, and the board by its constitution was really a jury. No ordinary citizen had such an unbiased jury as the board, as at present constituted, to hear his case. If a teacher was still unsatisfied he had the Teachers' Appeal Court. These were the legal provisions for the protection of teachers. Why should the executive of the institute arrogate to itself a power superior to all those tests and say that if a member were unjustly dismissed no other teacher should apply for the position? To carry that into effect they would have to publish a "black list." In nearly every case teachers had a proper regard for the honour of the profession, said Mr. Wild, but there were the very few who had the wrong idea that the children were provided for a means of livelihood, that the teacher, right or wronc, must always be protected and that the board—the employer—must be baulked at every turn. Fortunately, there were only a very few like that. Mr. G. Benstead seconded the motion. " Arrogant Position " Mr. J. W. Preen said all would agree that it was an arrogant position for the teachers to take up. The board had to see that any wrong committed by a teacher was dealt with by the board. Surely the employer had the right to say whether an employee was guilty or not guilty. "It is the height of impertinence for the teachers to arrogate that right to themselves," said Mr. Preen. The institute is a big union that has to be fought, and it is getting stronger and stronger." The chairman, Mr. C. S. Thompson, said the clause was only a recommendation by the teachers. The law was not altered.

Mr. Benstead said he thought the teachers were already adequately protected. If, as was the case in England a few years ago, teachers had no redress, something of the sort might have been necessary. Mr. W. A. Banks, said that as far as he knew, no case of an unjust dismissal had ever come before the board from the institute. The clause'was an insult to the board.

Mr. W. T. Langley said he viewed the clause gravely. It was a piece of impertinence on the part of the teachers.