1.—13b

12

are suffering from the persistent irregularity of attendance? —That is so. With regard to Switzerland, the absences are divided into absences with excuses and absences without excuse, and the absence with excuse are nine-tenths —only one-tenth being without excuse. In all absences without excuse the parents are reprimanded or punished. Legal excuses are illness of the child, illness of the father or the mother, serious illness of certain other members of the family named, death of certain members of the family, &c. These are the only legal excuses. 97. Under the Act children cannot be legally compelled to attend oftener than four days a week?— That is so. 98. I do not know whether it has been represented to you that parents are taking very great advantage of this legal power to keep their children away from school?—I do not think they are taking very great advantage of it, because our attendance is better than the attendance in Scotland, Wales, and other countries. The law which is lax and is enforced may produce better results than a law which is stringent and not enforced. 99. 2'he Chairman.] Paragraph (d,) of the Second Schedule to the Bill reads, " At least two of the first six assistants in any school must be women." Is this alteration from " three 'to " two " a misprint ? —No. 100. What is the reason for paragraph (d) I —All the salaries are higher, and there is reason for leaving the hands of the Board free to adopt any organization within the limits of the Act considered desirable. The Boards do not organize their schools exactly alike; they vary in their ideas as to what positions are suitable for men, and what are suitable for women, and I think it is absolutely fair to let them have some degree of liberty in organization. 101. Do you think it will" operate to the disadvantage of women teachers? —I do not think it will operate towards the reduction of salaries. I have no strong objection to leaving it at three instead of two, but if you say " three," you tie up the Board as to one more individual member of the staff. 102. Have you been asked by any representative teachers to make that alteration? —No, but it was discussed at the meeting of the Boards in 1906 or 1905. 103. There is a general feeling among female teachers that this alteration will operate to their disadvantage?—Do they mean as to salaries or position? With regard to salaries it will not; with regard to position it may.' But if they go down they will still get a higher salary than they got before. 104. Do you think it should be relegated to the Boards? —It is a question how far you should leave it to the Boards. If you leave the Boards with two positions only to fill in a certain manner, you tie them less than if you leave them with three positions only to fill in a certain manner. The difficulty of filling positions in accordance with the rule was raised at the Conference. 105. Do you know why they should not restore the position of mistress?— Boards staff their schools with different ideas, and some would put the mistress of the girls' department first, some the infant-mistress. They differ as to which is the most important position. Where there is evidently not a clear agreement that one policy is better than another, it is better to leave the matter to the Boards, as they organize the schools. There is not a strong expert opinion that that either position is better than the other. In that case it is better to leave it to the Board. 106. Turning to Grade 8 (76-90) of the old Act, it is said they will benefit little or nothing under the new arrangement :is that so? I refer to teachers in schools varying from 76 to 80. It is said they actually suffer a reduction of £s?—No teachers suffers a reduction of £5, because there is a proviso in the Bill (subclause 2 of clause 7), " That a teacher employed in a public school at the commencement of this Act shall not, so long as he remains in the same position, receive a salary lower than that to which he would have been entitled under the principal Act had this Act not been passed." Tuesday, 4th August, 1908. George Hogben, Inspector-General of Schools, examination continued. (No. 1.) 1. The Chairman.] I want you, Mr. Hogben, to give us some information on the staffing of the schools, comparing the schedule under the new Bill with that under the old Act. Then, as to the staff, say, for a school of Grade Vla?—Under the old Act the staff was one headmaster, two assistants, and two pupil-teachers. 2. What will it be under the new? Hon. Mr. Fowlds: Was it not one assistant? Mr. Hogben: I beg pardon. Yes, one assistant. The arrangement under the new Bill doss not exactly correspond with the arrangement made under the old Act. It most nearly corresponds from 121 to 150. Formerly, the staff was one headmaster, one assistant, and two pupil-teachers. The staff under the new schedule will be one headmaster and three assistants. 3. The Chairman.] Is there anything in the Bill preventing a reduction of the present staff?— There are one or two places where the staff would be reduced. I suggested the insertion of a proviso which has been omitted accidentally. The proviso is as follows: Proviso to clause 5, (1) — " Provided that the staff of any school shall be at least as strong as it would have been under ' The Education Act, 1908.' " 4. Mr. Buddo.] Under the Act as at present in force it would stand for a school of 281 to 330, four assistants. Now, in this schedule just issued it will stand for a school between 251 and 300, three assistants?— That is so at present, until the staffing in column 7 is adopted. That is why I think this clause is necessary. It would provide an additional assistant. Without such a clause, however, such schools might have one additional assistant taken from the additional assistants.