APPEAL REJECTED

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 74, Issue 138, 13 June 1931, Page 6

APPEAL REJECTED

DISMISSAL OF TEACHER COURT UPHOLDS THE BOARD |i Reserved judgment, made available yesterday, dismissed the appeal of Miss Catherine Richards Phillips against her dismissal from the employ of the Wanganui Education Board. Each party is to bear its own costs. The members t of the Appeal Court were unanim- .. ous. On the Bench, Air J. H. Salmon, S.AL, Air H. Alclntyre (Feilding), re- . presenting the Board, and Air F. S. Pope representing the Teachers’ In- , stitute. Air W. H. Bwajiger appeared for the Board. Miss Phillips conducted her own case. The full text of the judgment was: “This is an appeal under Part XL of ' the Education Act, 1914. “The appellant was dismissed by the , Education Board of the district of Wan- , ganui from her position of sole teachoi I at the Rangiwahia School. This dis s missal followed upon an inquiry insti- . tuted by the Board and held by Air J. , S. Tingey, a member of the Board, hml ’ Air W. G. Blackie, Senior Inspector of , Primary Schools, Wanganui, at Rangiwahia. in July 1930. “The present appeal was beard at Wanganui on Atay 27, 28, 29 and 3C . last, and a large number of witnesses were called by the Board including the Director of Education, the Chief InspecI tor of Primary Schools and other Inspectors, some members of the Committee of the Rangiwahia School who were also parents of children attending the , school. The appellant also called several witnesses including Air H. A. Parkinson, Secretary of the New Zealaad Educational Institute. The simple issue for this Court to decide is “was the Board justified in view of all the circumstances and the material before it. m dismissing the appellant from her position?” Decision Was Unanimous “The members of the Court have arrived at a unanimous decision that the Board was justified in its action and that the appeal must fail. “It is clear that ability to impart instruction is not the only qualification required in a school teacher. Without, entering into details of the appellant’s experience under various Education Boards in different parts of New Zealand the Court was compelled upon the evidence to arrive at a conclusion similar to the view exp essed by the Director of Education who stated: “In my a long experience on the administrative side I do not know any teacher who has given the Department more concern oi who has received so much consideration from the Department. . . In view of my long experience of appellant and my knowledge of her history and the reports upon her I say reluctantly that I have come to the conclusion that appellant is temperamentally unfitted for the teaching profession.” It is unnecessary to express our find ings upon the numerous grounds for dismissal alleged by the Board in its statement of reply furnished in terms of tho Act for tho purposes of this Appeal. It is sufficient that the Court, confirms the action of the Board upon any valid ground relied upon by the Board, and the Court, as already indicated, finds the grounds alleged in Paragraph 3 of the Board’s statement substantiated by the evidence, namely: “3. (1) During her four years’ occupancy as sole teacher at Rangiwahia tnree inquiries have been held by the Board in respect of complaints against tne appellant. v2) Parents have taken their children away from the School.

“(3) A large majority of parents and the School Committee were dissatisfied with the appellant and requested het removal. “(4) The appellant, while in many ways a good teacher, lacked tho ability to accommodate herself to her environment with the result that she lost the confidence (*t some parents and so failed to obtain the best results from the children. “(5) The appellant's conduct generally while in the employ of the Board during some years has been of such a nature as to satisfy this Board that she is temperamentally unfitted to retain the position of a teacher in the Board’s employ. “A significant piece of evidence in support of the third ground abovemcntioned is to bo found in the petition presented at the conclusion of tho last mquiry. This is signed by fourteen parents representing twenty-six out uf

me twenty-eight children attending the appellant’s school. This petition requests that the Board transfer the appellant from her position in control of the School. “Good Teacher in Many Ways” “In justice to the appellant we feet bound to endorse the view expressed by the Board in its Btatcment of Reply tnat the appellant is in many ways a good teacher. Her success with pupilsfor proficiency examinations has not oeen denied. Despite her years and the many vicissitudes of her teaching career appellant has comparatively recently obtained her C Grade certificate. “The appellant is in her fifty third year. Under the By laws of the Board the retiring age for female teachers fifty-live. The Board has deemed it inadvisable to transfer appellant from her last, position to another school for the baiauce of her years of service. We have held the Board justified. “ \\ c understand that the appellant, was at one period of her career employed in the Correspondence School Branch of the Education Department. Had she bceu retained in that branch of the ser vice it is, we think, probable that her abilities might have found a safer field, removed from any possibility of conflict of temperaments with members of school committees or with parents. It, is necessary to add only that the appellant’s allegations of persecution wore distorted and in a large measure. »f not entirely, unfounded. “We think it desirable to point out. for the guidance, of the Board and the Department that a teacher upon dismis □al should be furnished promptly with grounds of such dismissal. That apparently was not done in the present case, and the appellant was put to some delay and expense in obtaining written notice ot them. It is true that appellant might readily have inferred wha’ those grounds were, hut that would notA have been sufficient for the purposes ot launching an appeal with the endorsement of the New Zealand Educations I Institute. “The appeal is. therefore, dismissed but in view of the last mentioned aspect of the matter, and in exercise of our discretion as to costs we direct that each party shall pay her or its own