MARRIED WOMAN TEACHERS.

Taranaki Daily News, 27 February 1931, Page 4

MARRIED WOMAN TEACHERS.

. . ■ ..(To The Editor.) • Sir,—l - was-amazed at the effrontery ’of the/‘Three Mrs. B’s” in putting for- , ward illogical defence of married woniph teachers. I was amused. at the. astounding statement that married women ’'teachers remained in the profession for the love of their noble work. Surely they omitted to add that these idealistic women scorned any pecuniary : reward-for their-labours of love. It is ridiculous to assert that, women would cast aside -offers of marriage solely because of their great love for the pro- : fession, and so I do not think that we ‘shall be faced with that awful phantom of the flappers' waiting eagerly for the old maids to die. Surely the Three Blind Mice can see that the cases of the farmer’s wife (whom they.should be exceedingly chary of mentioning), and the wives of the doctor and barber, publican arid dentist, are in nowise parallel to the case of the married woman teacher, the vital point of difference being that in each of the former cases the object is the economical development of A specific business in which both husband and .wife have an identical interest. Therefore, the wife in each of these cases will,, in. all probability, be of more service to the business thah an outsider." This in no instance applies to the married woman teacher and her husband, • - ■ With regard- to’ the “Three Mrs. B s state'mdiit thM approximately 40 domestics would '-automatically find, themselves without positions when their mistresses were, dismissed, I venture to state that not one-fourth of married ■ women' teachers employ, servants. . 1 am acquainted with only five married women teachers—All' have able-bodied husbands—and not one of them em--1 ploys, a domestic. Therefore we . are safe in assuming that one-fourth is a generous estimate. 'Should these 40 married women teachers' be dismissed, the result would be that ten domestics •for whom there is always a demand, would lose, their positions, while 40

young men and women with highly specialised training would find employment in their vocation. As everyone knows, the Education Board each year invites applications for a certain stated number of .pupil-teacherefhips, and therefore it follows that the Education Board impliedly guarantees that there will be continuing employment for this number. Thus the onus is on the Education Board to fulfil this implied guarantee. Not only are the pupil-teachers deceived but also- their parents. In compiling an estimate of the - number of new entrants to the profession required ♦yearly the Education Board must necessarily be guided by the number of vacancies caused through death, retirement and marriage. The fact that many women teachers on marrying still retain their positions must upset the calculations of the board and result in unemployment. Therefor© is it not just that the Education Department should remove one of the causes of unemployment among" teachers ? To take the places of these married women are many trained ex-students full of ideals and enthusiasm, which are gradually ebbing away through lack of opportunity, and the increasing c^r^ s and humiliation of unemployment. The self-assurance of the “Three Mrs. B.s in stating that the services of married women teachers are indispensable is simply colossal. lam writing this from the viewpoint of a teacher, now unemployed, and I am fully convinced that the views herein set forth are in ful concurrence with those of my fellow ex-students and of the great majority of the teaching profession. I have not yet touched on the financial situation of the unemployed teachers, who are bound by a bond to remain m the service of the Education Department for three years in the case of women, and five years in the case of men, after the completion of- their- Training Allege course. Speaking dispassionately, one cannot fail to see-the tragedy of it all. Young men, debarred by the cupidity of the niarried women teachers from settin o foot on the lowest rung of the ladder, now suffer a blighting check to their career, for the loss of permanent employment for two years—even for one Year ma y prove an unsurmountaWo barrier to v their’attaining to the heights of the profession. I thank you for allowing me to set forth the viewpoint of a teacher who, through no fault of his own, is now unemployed.. —I am, etc., STRUCTUjR.