Just Treatment of Teachers

Observer, Volume xi, Issue 667, 10 October 1891, Page 9

Just Treatment of Teachers

In a leading article on Mr Muir's salary scheme the Lyttleton Times of 18th September says :— ' We fail to see much force in one objection used against it, viz., that it would tend to make all the best qualified men seek the easier work of the smaller schools.' The article, which has doubtless been inspired by the Minister of Education, concludes by stating ' that it is possible for Education Boards to extend some measure of justice to a section of publio servants who are not wholly undeserving of fairplay.' In addition, note the item in our last issue to the effect that the Southland Board of Education has practically adopted a £300 maximum salary. Justice, logic and example alike commend Mr Muir's scheme, which must ultimately be adopted The puerile paper of Mr Heriot in Saturday's Herald bristles with contradictions and contemptible inuendos, when dealing with this and. other subjects. His superiors alike in position as in intellect will not, we feel certain, stoop to notice suoh brainless vapourings. The £8000 he would like to obtain a share of has been unlawfully accumulated, and we feel certain the Board will see to its legitimate expenditure. They certainly will not, judging from their previous im> partial administration, donate any portion of it to thegreedy, selfish, and nepotic clique, who on this occasion have made a • convenience ' and mouthpiece of a mediocre educational gymnast— a chattering, presidential eccentricity.

Take the following example of unequal salaries under the Auckland Board :— One E teacher receives his £307 a year, rather a good round figure; while another E teacher of precisely the same merit receives juss £107 a ye.ar. Mr Muir's just scheme would divide the sum of £307 and £107, that is £414 into equal portions of £207, and give this to Bach. Mr Heriot designates such a thing as a ' reduction of salaries.' He forgets that it is a raising of salaries -also.