TEACHERS’ RESIDENCE'S.

Southland Times, Issue 18974, 22 June 1923, Page 2

TEACHERS’ RESIDENCE'S.

To the Editor. Sit, —In your issue of 15? t inst there ap- j pears an account of an interview with ' Mr Stevenson, secretary of the Southland ' Education Board, on the above subject, which I think is deserving of attention. It would appear that the North Canterbury Education Board is alive to the disadvantage of the backblocks teacher, and is desirous of alleviating, in some measure at least, those disadvantages. I am inclined to think that if Mr Stevenson could just pass through the experiences of some of the youfig people who are sent out into the backblocks to, as Montgomery puts it, “Teach the young idea how to shoot,” he would modify his statement, or perhaps I should say, his opinion on this subject very considerably. I freely accept the statement that there are at the present time some . 40 school residences standing unoccupied by the teachers. Still I maintain that that is no reason why a teacher should not at least have an option. It is, on the part of the Board, a matter of economy, and we must admire in these days of squander such an admirable trait in their administration, but after all even economy may be misdirected, and I think that in this case it is so. Is it not a fact that where there is no residence, a house allowance is made? I am not sure as to the amount, but I have frequently seen it mentioned in the Board’s advertisements. Would not this “allowance” go a long way towards interest on the cost of building a small cottage? Where the occupant is not likely to be a married man there would be no necessity to build a four or five-roomed residence, but some accommodation should certainly be provided, even if nothing more than a hut, so as to make the teacher independent of charity. Let me instance a case which I know to be typical of many others. But first let me say that in most cases farmers do not go to the backblocks from choice, but because they cannot- afford anything better, they therefore build only sufficient accommodation for their own requirements so that if they take in a boarder it is by sacrificing there own convenience. Now in the case I refer to a young man was sent along. After some searching he found accommodation with a settler. The accommodation was a small bedroom without a fireplace and with little privacy for study such as is necessary where an aspiring teacher has to pass exams, and he had to travel about two miles through mud and slush. Later he got board and lodging nearer, but that lasted a very short time, and again he had to search for shelter, and he found it with a bachelor farmer about three miles away over a rough hilly road. Is it any wonder that young people get disgusted with a profession which treats I them in such a way? I could quote other instances not very dissimilar, but let this pass for the present. Compare what I have just said with Mr Stevenson’s statement in the last paragraph of your article, that “residences in the towns were much more essential, as many of the teachers could not secure what they required in close proximity to their school, but in the country districts the position was entirely different and was nothing short of useless expenditure.” I agree that the position is different, but I insist that it is entirely to the detriment of the young person, male or female, who goes to the backblocks. .By all means let the Board provide residences in the towns if needed, but let them at least make the backblocks teacher independent of charity, no matter how small the cottage may be, even if only like a ploughman’s hut, they will then be independent, and will be in a position to study and have some hope of qualifying for advancement. —I am, etc., J. H. McLEAN.