TEACHERS’ SALARIES

New Zealand Times, Volume XXX, Issue 6652, 28 October 1908, Page 2

TEACHERS’ SALARIES

MINISTER'S INTERPRETATION CRITICISED. LEGAL AND MORAL POSITION. (By a Public School Teacher.) Knowing that the “Now Zealand Times’' has always been ready to urge and uphold the just claims of public school teachers; and feeling sure that vou will not, in the present controversy as to the interpretation of tho Education Act Amendment Act, 1908, say anything that is not in accordance with tho traditions of your paper, they put before your readers a plain statement of the position as it appears to teachers, and, incidentally, to controvert sonic of tho statements appearing in your editorial columns of to-day’s issue. lii order for a clear understanding of tho position, I shall quote tho relevant sections of the Education Act Amendment Act, 11K)8. They qro as follows: Section 11. Thift Act shall come ,into operation on tho first day of January, 1903. , „ Section 111. (1) Public schools shall ho classified in grades and subgrades in accordance with provisions of Part I of tho First Schedule hereto. Section IV. The salaries payable to . teachers in public schools are hereby classified in grades and sub;grades in accordance with the provisions or Part 11 of the First Schedule-here-to. Section VII. (1) Subject to tho provisions hereinafter contained iu tins section the salaries payable to teachers in public schools shall be the salaries of the grades and sub-graacs, as defined in Part II of the First Schedule thereto, prescribed for those teachers in the Second Schedule hereto; (3) A teacher who is employed in a public school at tho commcuicement of this Act shall, so long as lie remains in. the same position, receive as from the beginning ol each year (commencing with tho year 1909) an annual increment of five! pounds IN ADDITION TO TUB SAI/ABY ItECEIVED BY HIM AT THE COMMENCEMENT of this . act until liis salary reaches tho maximum for the grade or sub-grado of salary attached to that position by this Act. Now, sir, ihe.se sections of iho Act provide on January Ist, 1000 1 , next, for an entirely new arrangement oi trading and staffing of schools. Iho grades of schools depend on the average attendance of such schools—they are entirely different from the grades at present in force, and the stalling is different. Ultimately tho staffing will be much more liberal—that is, when the pupil teachers at present in use are replaced hy certificated teachers; hut immediately in most cases tno staffs’ of schools will bo strengthened by additional assistants. Now, this regrading and re-staffiug of schools, is made on and from the first of January, 1909. Next, the salaries of the teachers axe provided for in Part 11. of the first schfdulo of the Act. That schedule contains — a. Grades and sub-grades of salary. b. Minimum salary of such grade or sub-grade. - 1: , , o. Maximum salary , of such grado or i, sub-grade. „ , , d. Annual increment (£5). Now,' the seventh section, of which two relevant subsections, are quoted above, contains the “maclnnoiy clauses for giving effect to Part H. of Schedulo I. Subsection 1 says :-f‘ Subject to provisions. hereinafter contained • in ' tins section the. salaries of - teachers . . . • shall bo the -salaries of and sub-grades as defined in Part 11. or first schedulo prescribed for those teachers in the .second schedulo ; and the section goes, on to provide for all sections of teachers. Now, sir, a ■point -in danger ot tieing missed in this matter is this: Iho salaries that teachers are receiving at present—that is, under sections o 7 08, 59 of tho Education Consolidation Act, 1903, are. in a few cases higher than the “minimum” provided for in the same jiosition under the now Act; but in most cases they are below the minimum —in tiro lower grades of school very much below. ■ The former cases—i.e., those whore the salary now received is higher than tho “minimum” in the amending —aro provided for in sub-section 2 of section 7which reads:— “A teacher employed in a public school at the commencement of this Act shall not—so long as he remains in the same position —receive a salary lower than that to -which ho would have been entitled under the principal Act had -this Act not been passed.” And tho latter class—viz., those whoso present salary is less than tho “minimum” under tho now Act are provided for in the 3rd sub-section of section 7 quoted in full at the commencement of this letter. Now, Sir, I am quite aware that for the purposes of the Education Department argument from the legal point of view is tho only argument worth bringing; but for tho .purposes of tho press and tho people of this Dominion, argument from a moral point of view is also acceptable. I propose to use both tho legal and tho moral argument. First as to tho interpretation of tho Act. controversy hangs on the interpretation of ‘ the words, quoted in section 3, sub-section 7, above, “in addition to tho salary received by him at the commencement of this Act.” What .salary is a teacher receiving on the coming into operation of tho amending Act—on January Ist, ( 1909 ? The department and the Minister say: The salary ho is receiving now under the old Act; but the sections of the old Act governing the grading of schools and .the staffs . of schools and the salaries of tho members of such staffs aro repealed and their places taken by now sections providing. for new grading, new staffs, and new salaries. - -I will leave it to the legal profession to say whether the interpretation I have put on these sections is correct or not: but to the plain man in the street, I think my argument will appeal as uncontrovertible. ~ . All through the session wo teachers have read this phrase, “in addition to tho salary received by him at the commencement of this : Act” to mean “in addition to the minimum salary named in Part 11., of Schedulo I,” because no other interpretation seems reasonable or fair. And now for tho moral argument. I have said above that at present some teachers aro receiving more than the ‘•minimum” salary under tho new Act, hut many teachers are receiving less. What is tho implication here? Is it not clearly that, while the many in the latter class have been in tho past underpaid, as evidenced my the fact that the now Act gives a higher minipium salary to the same kind of posi-

tion, tho few in tho former case hnvo been overpaid in the past, seeing that tho now Act gives the same jiosition a lower minimum salary. And yet, tha Minister and the depart incut say in effect; Wo will penalise those teachers, who, by implication, tho now Act says have boon underpaid—penalise them for some two, throe, or four years more. We will not give them inline, diatcly tho minimum which wo admit the position deserves, but wo will give it to them gradually in yearly inerc. nients of five pounds! And’ thereafter they may work up to tho maximum at the same impetuous speed—another four, live, or six years’ process. But, to iho lucky teacher who, again by implication, the now Act regards as having been in iho past overpaid (sic) tiro Mil inter and tho department say in effect; “Well, your luck is still in—you can go on and reach your maximum—mind you maximum, not minimum—in two years or so.. 3ir, tile contention is too absurd, and 1 contend with every respect that the Minister, the Department and tho writer of jour leaderette, will have great difficulty in persuading tho .people of this Dominion that such was over tho intention of tho Legislature, or that the wording of tho Act, howover you may strain it, will boar such an interpretation. And if sucli an interpretation is put on it and put into effect, note tho result. I will give a typical case. A first assistant in a city school receives £240 at present. Ho has been in iho jiosition some years. The now Act gives that position :—Minimum £270, maximum £290. According to tho Minister's interpretation this man will got next, year £245, the year, following £250, and so on, so that iij six years ho roaches his minimum, and in four years more his /maximum salary; ten years altogether. But another man who is appointed after January Ist, 1909, to a similar position in a school of tJio same grado will start with £270 and roach his maximum in tour years. Why, Sir, tho .North Canterbury Board of Education, at its meeting- last Wednesday, after considering ,a Jotter from tho Education Department, proceeded to appoint a teacher temporarily to a first assistnntship in a city school—his appointment to become permanent on January Ist. Why? To secure to him an adequate salary; and a. fair course to take, too. But tho first . assistant...in tho neighbouring school of the same grade, who has been serving the State faithfully in that position for a longer or shorter period, is to steji up to bin adequate salary by increments of £5. Tho new Act, wo wore told, wouhr remove many anomalies. No anomaly has boon removed so glaring as tho ono it is proposed to create. Finally, the Department’s contention that-Education Boards can obviate tho position by filling vacancies by , promotion and' thus raise those below the minimum up to that standard,, while true enough te a certain extent, ia misleading. The Boards cannot mako vacancies—they can only fill them up as they occur; end this will bo a partial and long delayed process., ,