MARRIED WOMEN TEACHERS.

Otago Witness, Issue 3806, 22 February 1927, Page 76

MARRIED WOMEN TEACHERS.

A KEEN DISCUSSION. WELLINGTON, February 16. .the ears of all married women in the employ of the Wellington Education Board must have been tingling to-day, when the usually calm and unruffled deliberations of the board were for the space of half an hour or so somewhat disturbed by the introduction of the question of the rights and wrongs of employing married women teachers. The ball had been really se t rolling at the previous meeting, when Mr J. J. Clark asked for a return showing full particulars of all the married women employed as teachers by the board. This report was furnished to the meeting today, and showed that the number of'married women employed as teachers by the board was 57 Mr Clark moved that a sub-committee be set up to consider eachcase individually, and to report to the full board. Hardly had Mr Clark finished enunciating his motion than Mr G. T. London was on his feet endeavourin'’ to make clear, he said, “his unequivocal objection to this tyranny.” “There is,” lie said, “some ulterio motive behind this motion. Our duty as a board is to make appointments from those best qualified to serve as teachers, not to inquire into the social status and domestic life of the teachers. Whatever the result of the proposed sub-committee’s investigation, we cannot do anything. The blissful married state cannot be held to be a disqualification for anything. What possible good can such an inquiry do? It will only make us look ridiculous. 5 ’ The chairman (Mr T. Forsyth, M.P.) remarked that the board could not take any action against married teachers. If it thought fit it could make recommendations that the regulations should be altered with regard to the future appointments of married women.

That the interests of the children came first and last was the opinion expressed by Mr T. Moss. There were some married women employed as teachers who were excellent, and there were others who were not. Each case should be considered on its merits, and they had the grading list to guide them. Again Mr London voiced his protest against “the consideration of marriage as a crime.” Even the Turk to-day, he said, has given his women freedom, much to the benefit of the Turk. “Do we want our women to be like Red Indian squaws, who have the gnawed bone chucked to them as their share? In this disordered world women may some day take charge and bring order out of chaos. Many of us would be unemployed were it not for women’s influence. Women were not here just' to administer to man’s needs. ‘Now that I have becom a mother I have become a better teacher’ would be the cry of many a married teacher hungering to do service to the community.” Information was then given that as far as the inspectors were concerned it was found that in most cases married women made better teachers than young girls. They were more experienced in the proper handling of children. Instances were rare when a young teacher went on with her job after marriage. After the chairman had reiterated that there was no question of dismissing the married women already employed, and no harm in a sub-committee reporting, Mr London declared emphatically that the profession of marriage was of greater importance than that of teaching. If a single teacher married she should be released froih her bond, the State saying, “We have taken much trouble to train you, but your new vocation is of more importance. You may go with our blessing.” Other members having expressed their views on the subject, Mr Clark replied. He said that he did not want the board to dismiss all its married teachers, even if it had the power, which it had not. What he wanted was an investigation. There were upwards of 60 teachers out of college with no positions to fill If only five or six of the married teachers at present employed could be relieved of theit jobs without disorganisation it .would make for efficiency in the service and provide, employment for a corresponding number who were seeking employment, and who had a right to be employed. ‘‘lf we do not make a move in this matter nothing will ever be done.” He instanced a case of a teacher not in the employ of tho Wellington Board who held a good position, and whose husband was earning •£llOO a year. “If you have a husband to keep you., you should not do any work. 5 ’ “A doctrine philosophically wrong.” interjected .Mr London. Mr Clark concluded his advocacy of his motion by saying that members,' if they blocked it, had not the interests of the board at heart. The statement brought immediate demands for a withdrawal, and Mr Clark withdrew it unreservedly, adding, to the amusement of members, “That those who voted against it were not viewing the matter in as broad a manner as they might.” The motion that the list of married women teachers should be reported upon to the board by a sub-committee was then put, being carried by six votes to four.