OFFENDING TEACHERS

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume LXXXIII, Issue 20005, 23 November 1927, Page 9

OFFENDING TEACHERS

PROPOSED FINE Reasons Why its Infliction is is Desired DEPARTMENT'S POINT OF VIEW. [ Special “ Chronicle ” Service ] WELLINGTON, Nov. 22. With reference to the clause embodied in the Education Bill, now before Parliament, which empowers Education Boards to impose a fine not exceeding £lO on teachers who are guilty of wilful disobedience or neglect of duty, the Education Department states that the necessity for this clause arose out of the representations made by several of the Education Boards, who found themselves without sufficient power of control over their employees. Under the present law, tho only penalty an employing board can inflict on a teacher is dismissal, and it is necessary that some less drastic punishment should be provided, so that the board can. impose some check on offences of a minor character without depriving the offender of his means of livelihood. A teacher cannot even be suspended except for immoral conduct or gross misbehaviour. A case occurred early this year where a teacher, who was refused an extension of the midsummer holidays, stil persisted in taking the extra day she applied for. The board suspended her, uut the Educational Institute took up her case, with the result that the board was compelled to reinstate her and to cancel the suspension.. The teacher thus escaped punishment of any kind. Offences Complained Of Occasionally, teachers are persistently late for duty, take half-hours off without Jeave for their own purposes, are negligent in furnishing returns or in keeping school records, and arc neglectful of duty in other respects, and a board has no effective remedy. If officers of other branches of the Public Service offend in the respects mentioned above, the controlling authority has adequate means of dealing with offenders by inflicting punishment suited to the offence. They can be reprimanded, fined, deprived of annual salary increments, reduced in grade, suspended, or dismissed. The only punishment provided for the Education Act in dealing with teachers is dismissal and, as teachers are protected by the right of appeal,, the board that dismissed a teacher for the minor offences named would find that its action would be held by the Appeal Court as too drastic. The boards consequently are powerless, and schools and pupils suffer in consequence. The teachers contend that offenders can be dealt with by the boards through their grading, on which depend the teacher’s chance of promotion and, to a small extent, his salary in the position held, and the inference is that similar action cannot be taken in the Public Service. But what are the facts? The promotion of a public servant depends upon his efficiency and attention to duty, just as much as that of the teacher. Further, a public servant cannot get an annual increment unless he is recommended therefor by his controlling officer, and there is no such provision relating to the teachers. The argument that teachers can be dealt with, through grading more effectively than public servants will not bear inspection. Grading is done by the inspectors, not by the boards, and, even if inspectors were to endeavour to inflict a penalty through grading, say for wilful absence from duty for half a day, it will be found that so few marks in grading could be deducted that the result on salary would be nil, or negligible, and, even if sufficinet deduction could be made, the effect would not be felt for probably twelve months To be effective in such case, punishment must be certain and immediate, and the suggested remedy through grading would be quite inadequate. Is It a Slur? But teachers say that the proposed fine would be a slur on the character of teachers as a whole and that the punishment provided for public servants would be an indignity if inflicted on a teacher. Could any argument be more illogical? They might as well contend that the punishment of a theif is a slur on law-abiding citizens, or that the punishment of the guilty damages the character of innocent teachers. They say they are professional men and women and should be exempt from discipline of this kind, and should not be subject to the same penalties as the ordinary civil servants. Even if this extrordinary contention be conceded—and it is admitted that teaching is on a higher plane than clerical work—what about the large body of medical men, solicitors, engineers, surveyors, scientists, architects, and other professional men and women in the Public Sei vice? Can the teachers claim superiority to these officers, or over the large body of teachers in native schools and special schools who, in case of default, are liable to be fined, de-graded, suspended, or dismissed. i There is no reason, contends the Department, why offending teachers should be exempt from the disciplinI ary provisions applicable to the Public Service. If inquiry be made into the I practice in other countries, it wLI be found that offe iliug teachers can be I dealt with more drasf caLy than is propeled in the cause in tl c Education Bill. In Tasmania, for example, tone tiers nay be fined, reduced in salary, deprived of promotion, or dismissed, and there is similar provn.cn in Qucerfland, New South Wales, and Western Australia. In Canada and the United S'.»tes, agai’;., controlling authorities hive effective means of discipline in da-ling with negligent and disobedient teachers.

From whatever point of view the propofil is viewed, says the Department, there no reason why means should not be provided for dealing with the few negligent or disobedient teachers m New Zealand, or why they should be exempt from the same disciplinary measures that are applicable to other employees in the Government service or to teachers in other countries. They should not be able with impunity to ignore the lawful instructions of

their head teachers or boards, and the fact that there is some provision to deal with offenders cannot possibly affect the great majority of teachers .who carry out their duties in a satisfactory manner.