SUSPENSION OF TEACHERS

Taranaki Daily News, 16 February 1933, Page 4

SUSPENSION OF TEACHERS

SCHOOL COMMITTEE POWERS CRITICISM OF AMENDMENT BILL. ABUSE OF. THE POSITION POSSIBLE. PROTEST FROM EDUCATION BOARD. The extension of the powers of school commitees in disciplining teachers conferred by the Education Amendment Bill now before Parliament was strongly opposed by the Taranaki Education Board yesterday. Not only was it Leld by members that clause 4 (f) in. the Bill gave committees too great a power which was open to abuse, but also it was contended that the wording of the clause left the issue not sufficiently • clearly defined. Power was contained in clause 82 (2) of the Education Act, 1914, for boards or committees to suspend, and for boards to peremptorily dismiss, any teacher for immoral conduct-or gross misbehaviour. The Bill in clause 4 (1) provides power for education boards, governing bodies of technical, secondary, combined., or intermediate schools and, in the case of a teacher in a public school, school committees to suspend any teacher who has been guilty of neglect of duty or of wilful disobedience to any lawful command given in relation to his duties. Boards or governing bodies are empowered to peremptorily dismiss any teacher for immoral conduct or gross misbehaviour. The following motion was . carried:— “The wording of clause 82 (2) in the Act is sufficient to meet the requirements of clause 4 (1) in the Education Act Amendment Bill, and the board considers the wording of the clause in the Bill is too wide and too indefinite.” Mr. J. A. Valentine (deputy-chairman) said he did not think there was any need for the inclusion of. the clause" in the Bill. It was a wrong principle, Dr. W. M. Thomson said. The board was the employer and the board’s power- should not be delegated in any matter of the sort. He thought the chairman of a school ■committee had enough power now. especially as he was backed up by the board. Chairmen could take action as it was. It looked as if the clause were placed there to meet only urgent cases, Mr. W. H. Jones said. There might be teachers who would ignore any action by. a committee unless the committee had the power to suspend therti. There had been no trouble in the past in Taranaki. Mr. Bain (senior inspector): It is a dangerous power in the hands of some committees. _ _ The clause was not definite, Mr. Valentine said. Who was to give the teacher the command mentioned in the clause.’ A committee had power under the Act to suspend a teacher and close a school in a case of a teacher’s immoral conduct or gross misbehaviour. The powers a committee had were already sufficient, said Dr. Thomson in moving the motion. . In reply to Mr. Henry, Mr. W. Insull (secretary) said a teacher had no redress against the committee in the case of wrongful suspension. Mr. Jones agreed with' Dr. Thomson that the board’s powers should not be delegated to committees. At the same time, he pointed out that the board would not like to be forced to refer to the Education Department any action it desired to take in the disciplining of teachers. , .