TEACHING STAFFS

Otago Daily Times, Issue 22065, 22 September 1933, Page 4

TEACHING STAFFS

REDUCTIONS DURING LAST TERM DEPARTMENT’S ATTITUDE RESENTED DISCUSSION BY EDUCATION BOARD At the meeting of the Otago Education Board yesterday a statement was submitted regarding the reductions in school teaching stall's during the last term. The department and the acting Minister of Education (Mr J. Bitchener) wrote regretting that they could not approve of relieving teachers being retained under the particular circumstances mentioned. It was decided to authorise a Special Committee to draw up an emphatic protest against the action of the department. The following statement on the position was submitted to the board:On July 25 the board wrote the department stating that when the attendance returns for the second term were received, it would most likely be found that some 20 schools -would suffer reductions in staff due in most cases to the raising of the school age. The letter pointed out that in the case of the permanent teachers who would be affected, -the three months’ notice of termination of services would expire a few days prior to the Christmas vacation, and that these teachers , being thus out of the service would lose the six weeks’ vacation pay they had earned by their year’s work. Approval was therefore asked under clause 33 to the payment of these teachers for the extra few days in December to entitle them to receive the vacation pay. The board’s letter also dealt with the position of schools tvhere relieving teachers were filling permanent positions, as it appeared from the regulations that these positions must be terminated not later than October 18 —i.e., two months after the end of the second term. The board asked that in order to save schools from disorganisation during the final term and also in view of the considerable saving which had been effected through the employment of relieving teachers instead of permanent teachers, the Minister approve under clause 36 of the retention of these relieving teachers until the end of the year.

On August 7 the department circularised ail boards stating that it had received representations from boards asking that permanent teachers be retained until the schools closed in order to safeguard their holiday pay, but it regretted that such action could not be approved. The circular stated further that relieving teachers in the schools affected must be dispensed with at the end of the second term. On August 9, as the outcome of verba] representations by the Wellington Board —for the renewed protests from the other boards would hardly have reached Wellington— the department informed all boards that it had now decided to allow permanent teachers under notice to be retained until the end of the year. This board then asked the department to deal as equitably with the relieving teachers in the interests of both the unemployed teachers and the schools, but the department replied regretting that it could not approve of their retention. At this stage the Auckland Board, in the course of a letter, intimated that it was making representations to the Acting Minister of Education, and this board wired Mr Bitchener supporting the Auckland Board. Our wire stated that any opportunity of providing work for unemployed teachers should be welcomed rather than curtailed, particularly when the unemployed had been saving the department the cost of permanent salaries —the saving to the end of August being some £6OO. The Acting Minister replied on August 30 regretting that he could not make the concession asked for. The board wired in reply that his decision was certainly a strict interpretation of the regulations, but it showed little regard for the interests of the pupils and teachers. Ten schools were being penalised because the board had endeavoured to save money for the department. Could he not yet exercise the latitude allowed by the regulations? This was supplemented by a further telegram asking that he give provisional authority for continuing the relieving teachers until September 30 pending, the Minister’s return. Mr Bitchener wired finally that he was sorry he could not agree to the request. The board then, three days before the schools resumed, had no. option but to notify the headmasters of the schools affected that the relieving teachers would not resume at the commencement of the third term, and that accordingly head-' masters would require to reorganise their classes.

The question might be asked: Why did the board fill so many permanent positions as they became vacant with relieving teachers? The answer is that the board knew that the raising of the school age would reduce the grade of a great many schools,- and that consequently it would not be fair to invite teachers to apply for positions which would most likely terminate in from nine to twelve months’ time. Then, again, some of the schools might not fall in grade, and vacant positions would thus be available for other teachers losing their positions. Of the 15 positions which the board did not fill, six are now safe, and nine will cease to exist. Ten permanent teachers in other schools will be losing their positions, and the six safe vacant positions will provide for six of these. Had the board not considered the interests of the teachers in this way there would at the end of this year be some 19 teachers looking for work instead of four. The board had made an effort to mitigate the full effect of the raising of. the school age in the interests of the teachers, but the department’s ruling has nullified the board’s efforts in that the children and schools are going to suffer, through, disorganisation during the last term. If the board had appointed permanent teachers the school staffs -would not have been disturbed until the end of the year, Strong letters of protest from the committees of the Arthur Street, Oamaru South, Oamaru North, Macandrew Road, and High Street Schools were also read. The chairman (Mr James Wallace) said he supposed they would have to. say something. It would be wise to say something on behalf of the board, because no doubt the department would say the board had landed itself in this trouble, as they had appointed temporary teachers instead of making permanent appointments. The board had, ever since Mr Masters had taken control of the department, done its level best —'particularly since then—to carry out the ideas of the department in this matter, and the saving of money to the department. He took it that in appointing these relieving teachers they had tried to do their duty to the teaching staffs, the children, and the department. The only ones who seemed to have scored was the department, which had saved some £6OO in salaries by the Otago Board appointing relieving teachers. Had, moreover, they been allowed to continue with the teachers until the end of the year they would still have been saving money for the department. He thought that the department had no regard for the schools or the children —it thought more'of the pounds, shillings, and pence, and it had victimised 10 schools. There had been 11, but they had managed to save one. He knew' the department would say that their board was at fault. He admitted that they had made an initial mistake, but they had done it trusting to the good sense of the department. The department, however, seemed to have no sense—no common sense when it wanted to relieve teachers in the last week of their term. He did not know why Mr Bitchener had refused to coasider their proposal; except that he was afraid to go against Mr Masters. This was one of the tilings that made him very angry—it seemed to him that the department Was not honest in the matter. Mr Wallace then moved that the Special Committee of the board dealing with this matter should make an emphatic protest to the department.

Mr D. T. Fleming seconded the motion. He said he could not understand the attitude of the department in these matters. It almost tempted one to say that there should be a revolt against the department. It was too insistent upon details. Mr W. R. Brush agreed with what had been said, and stated that he hoped a remedy would be found. The motion was carried.