THE TEACHING PROFESSION.

Otago Witness, Issue 3828, 26 July 1927, Page 6

THE TEACHING PROFESSION.

EMPLOYMENT OF MARRIED WOMEN. WELLINGTON, July 20. There were some lively moments at the meeting of the Education Boar’ 1 to-day when the vexed question of the employment of married women teachers was again under discussion. A letter was received from the secretary of the Auckland Education Board stating that the board had circularised every member of Parliament in New Zealand urging him to support an amendment of the Act giving eduction boards discretionary power in the matter c" the employment of married women teachers. The Wellington Board wSs asked to take such action as it deemed advisable. The Auckland Board recently took a referendum upon the following two ioS :— (1) I am in favour of allowing married women to be employed unconditionally as at present; (2) I think that education boards should be granted by statute discretionary powers in the employment of married women teachers. The re.' It in the Auckland district was 311 in,favour of the first issue and 1258 in favour of the second issue. Mr J. J. Clark opened the discussion ny .moving—“ That this board take similar action to that taken by Gio Auckland Sducation Board.”

Mr G. T. London spoke most heatedly. He said that the only matte; for the board was whether it had capable tea ?hers or not. The board had no justification for asking for such information. The Chairman (Mr T. Forsyth) : “I want to vote against the motion.” He quoted the opinion of Mr de Berry, who said that in. every school there was a place for the married woman. Mr T. Moss: The first c nsideration should be the children, and the best teacher available should be appointed whether married or single. Mr M'Callum supported Mr Moss. “It came as a surprise to me to learn that 6i per cent, of the teachers the Auckland district are separated tom their husbands,” said Mr C. H.Nicholls, who added that he was nvt in fa nr of employing married women teachers not requiring remuneration for their livelihood. Mr L. H. Atkins said he could see no harm in adopting the Auckland I? d’s suggestion. The mover of the'motion (Mr Clark) said that the Auckland Board seemed to have gone into the matter very c 'efully. and the question seemed to him t be one of commonsense.— (Voices: “Oh, no.”) He thought the board should have discretionary powers in the appointment of married teachers, and he hoped that the matter would be finalised. He instanced two cases of husband and wife, both in the employ bf the Wellington Education Board., the husband having sufil-

cient to keep the wife, and said that there' were other cases which did net warrant the wife teaching. Was it right that these women should keep others out of employment? He knew of a young man trained in the teaching profession who could get nothing to do, wh..e married women zero employed.—A Voice: “He couldn’t take their employment.” He did not mean that married women would be suddenly dismissed from their employment. Mr Forsyth: “The Act would h.-.ve to be observed.” Mr Clark reiterated that the board should be given the power to use its commonsense. Mr London: “A dangerous power when dealing with persons like you.” Mr Clark: “You flatter me unduly.” Mr London: “I have no hesitation in saying that notrall the marrief women in our service should be dismissed —far from it; but the board should have discretionary powers.” On the motion being put 7 voted for and 5 against it. A ballot of teachers will therefore have to-be taken in the Wellington district. TRAINING COLLEGE STUDENTS. QUESTION OF SUITABILITY, AUCKLAND, July 20. The question of eliminating students at the Training College who are tot deemed suitable for the teaching profeesion was

referred to in a letter received from the principal of the college bv the Auckland Education Board to-day. The letter, which was in reply to a communication pointing out that the work of several teachers had not been entirely satisfactory, stated: “It has to be remembered that with the exception of a, few in Class C all the students' admitted to college this year have been passed in on the recommendation of an inspector after not less than one year’s practical work as probationers in the primary schools. I have not been responsible for the selection of students for admis sion. It will be obvious that it is impossible for me to know as much ' bout each of the new entrants as does each head master who has one or two under daily observation for a year. Unless the board desires summarv action and is prepared to support my recommendations, even when they are contrary to the reports of head masters and inspectors. I think it will be desirable to proceed with some caution. Where aptitude appears to be decidedly lacking I shall tfv to meet the board’s wish by giving the matter personal attention with a view to further action, if necessarv. In the more general cases I can do little more than defer judgment while evidence accumulates.” The letter was received, and the chairman (Mr A. Burns) remarked that the move was a good one if it could be carried out.