Untitled

Fair Play, Volume II, Issue 27, 1 November 1894, Page 9

Why shouldn’t female teachers got something approaching the same rate of pay as the male? It seems to us that the tendency of the Education Boards is to work out themalo wageearners and replace them by fcuialos, giving the lattor a much less salary. If the women are to compete with men, let them be paid at the same rate. Take the Oamaru High Schools as a case in point. We see the three male teachers at the Boys’ school get 15890 a year in salaries, but the same number offomal© teachers at the girls’ sohool only £BBS. Thore should bo greater equality of salaries for male and female.

And while on this subject of teaohers’ salaries, how is it that a teacher holding a certain certificate teaching a certain .number of pupils gets nearly a third more salary under ono board than he would do under another, with the same certificate and samo number of pupils. What is wanted is a uniform scalo of salaries right round the colonies. And tho samo thing with school books. It’s all nonsense that because a child shifts from ono district to another, an entirely new lot of text books should have to be purchased. The inspectors, too, should be under the Central Department and not employed by tho Boards. At present they stop too long in one district, and being but mortal they make favourites and other harm is done. Uniform salaries, uniform books, inspectors under central control (as in England), and uniiorm standard examinations for the whole colony, these are some of the reforms which the Minister of Education should introduce next year.

!!<!**■ I-low is it, Mr. I. G. Word, Colonial Treasurer and Chief Boss of the Post and Telegraph Service, that in tho Telephono Bureau such gross favouritism has recently been exhibited? Are you aware that two young ladies, daughters of a gentleman reputed to be getting a salary of £'6oo a year, have recently -been appointed to the Exchange; also that the daughter of a 'high-placed and well-paid official *0! the Government Insurance Department has similarly been favoured ? And sure you also aware, sir, that there are dozens of poor girls equally os com* petent as some o! those appointed, whose parents have means under £8 a week, in some oases less, have applied for situations at the Exchange, and not been successful? Don’t you think that to give employment to the daughters of men in high positions and who get good incomes, while you turn away the daughters of poor men, girls whose earnings must all help to keep the family pot boiling, is gross favouritism and gross injustice? We whit for an answer,