APPOINTMENT OF TEACHERS.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 16737, 19 May 1922, Page 7

APPOINTMENT OF TEACHERS.

COMMITTEES’ DEMAND FOR FINAL CHOICE.

ACTION BY EDUCATION BOARD. There has been much dissatisfaction of late among school committees regarding the regulation of the Department of Education, which compels them, when filling a teaching vacancy, to appoint the candidate highest on the grading list. The committees wish that the names of ail candidates who aro nearly equal on the list should be forwarded to them, and that they l>e allowed to make the final selection.

The Canterbury Education Board today passed a resolution, introduced by Mr T. Hughes, to write to the Department and to the Minister of Education urging that the desired alterations .n the regulations be made. Air T. Hughes moved that a. letter ho sent by the Board to the Education Department. Speaking to his motion, ho said that he did not believe that the present system of appointing teachers was in. (lie best interests of education. He read the memorandum of Alarch 28 from the Director of Education (Mr J. Canghley), which stated : ; Re appointment of teachers. M ith reference to the above, I have to state that, oven if friction is caused between the Board and the committees through the dissatisfaction of the latter with the present system ol appointment, that would not indicate that the system is no better than the one previously in existence. Ihe claim by a committee to select a teacher even from, among the best of the applicants would infer that the committee was in a better position than the inspectors to judge which was the best teacher. Further. except ' n special circumstances, which are provided for under the present Act, a Dominion system of promotion can be secured only by giving the position to the teacher highest on the grading list Tt is noted that the Board expresses the opinion that the present system ot appointing teachers is detrimental to the host interests of education. The Department would be glad to receive the Board’s reasons for this opinion ’ Mr Hughes than read the letter to be sent to the Secretary of the Education Department. Tt runs as follows : “ In reply to your memorandum of AT a roll 38, with reference to the appointment of teachers, the Canterbury' Education Board respectfully begs t.» submit the following statement for your consideration : The Board desires to reiterate* the statement of fact that the present system of appointment is giving dissatisfaction to the committees in this district. "While admitting that the former system of making appointments was not faultless, this Board’s experience is that the existing mechanical and automatic system often fails to secure the best and most suitable teacher for positions, the special needs of which vary so widely, since in. general practice, appointments an* rigidly assigned to the teacher graded highest on the list of applicants. “ With regard to the contention that the claim by a committee to select a teacher from among the best of the suitable applicants would infer that the committee was in n better position than tlie Inspectors to judge which was the best teacher ; with no desire to discount either the ability or earnestness of the inspectors, the Board would submit that from their local knowledge, and the rare for all round welfare of their own children, five or nine local men could be trusted to select the best teacher for their special need from among two or three who, by their position on the graded list, are all suitable and practically equal as to profession >I qualifications. The last paragraph of your memorandum asks for the board's reasons lor the statement that the present principle of appointing teachers is detrimental to the best interests of education. The board would respectfully submit that any teacher, by long and efficient service, in the course of time gradually must attain a high grade in the service. In the course of time, too, such teacher’s physical energy, alertness and power of initiative must decline to a more or less extent. Certainly as a general rule- this happens before the age of retirement arrives. A position which demands vigorous mental and physical powers as well as professional qualifications of the highest order. becomes vacant. Though, the candidate referred It) above may be without serious disability except such as Nature 'imposes, yet he cannot be pa od over, and under the Department’s system he must receive tlie appointment. The board cannot agree that such appointments arc in the best in tcrests of education. Under a rigid system in which the highest graded teacher receives the appointment. this board has considerable misgivings as to whether the best and fittest teacher for a specific task always gets the position. In the board’s opinion it is beyond human skill to assess “ personality ” the main dynamic force in education—within a limit of one cr two marks. Therefore, although the present method of appointment is in the interests of some teachers, it i> riot necessarily in the interests of the children. This criticism is not dictated in any spirit, of hostility to the system, or in a spirit of carping criticism ; indeed. the board recognises the great value of the grading system as a guide to the merits of teachers. Such a scheme is an absolute necessity, as s the teachers’ register in Britain, but the board again respectfully asks:

‘‘That a wider interpretation of the special circumstances should be permitted, and that, whenever possible, within the limits of a few marks, the board may allow committees a selection from at least two or three suitable candidates who. from their position in the graded scheme and in the inspectors’ and board’s opinion, are best, suited to local conditions. ’ ’ Mr Banks seconded the motion, and said that every school committee »n Canterbury was interested in the mat ter, and every committee was kicking against the system and the Depart merit’s regulation. Further, the board was getting the blame. Mr Armitage suggested that a dame bo added to tho motion requesting that a eopv of the letter be sent to the -Minister (Hon C. J. Barr). It seemed to him that the longer a teacher fcerved and the older and feebler ho became, tie* higher position could he obtain. Mi J. Jamieson said that the Minister was the head of the Department, and the letter should be sent to him, to avoid its being shelved in Wellington . The motion was carried, with Air Armitage's addition, and tlie chairman thanked Mr Hughes for the care and interest lie had taken in the matter. Mr Lane said that with regard to the appointment ot lemhers the board maintained that under the proviso of sub-section 7 of section 36 of the Education Act, 1914. it had discretionary power, subject- to the concurrence ol school committee the names ot not more than three eaiididales even if there was

a slight difference in regard to the grading of candidates. ft. was decided that if the board's solicitor concurred in this interpretation, a para graph to that effect would be added to the board’s letter to the I>e~ partment.