SECOND ASSISTANTS.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVII, Issue 2447, 11 March 1909, Page 2

SECOND ASSISTANTS.

MALE v*. FEMALE TEACHERS. At Monday’s meeting of the Haw•ke’s Bay Education Board a •letter was ■ received from three second as-; distant male teachers in the Board’s employ protesting against female assistants occupying the positions of oecond assistants. A. R. Ctdlen (Hastings), “NY. H. Jones (Napier), and D. Cowan (Gisborne) wrote stating that as it had come to the notice of the second assistants that the third assistants were taking steps to have them disrated it possible, they (the winters) desired to lay ' before the Board the following facts showing the superiority of their claims, and the legality they had to the position of second assistants: — 1. For the past three years the second male assistants had been treated unjustly. When the colonial scale of salaries caane into operation, although their salaries rose, they tell short <>i expectations by £lO, which sum was given to the original headmistresses. This was the.-only notice of disrating they received, and as no official intimation was received as to the change in status they must still be second as sistants.

| 2. The statements that lady assist.1 tants liad charge of more than onc- • third of the pupils in the. whole school | and that they were responsible for the training of pupil teachers, were cn birely wrong. The closing of the present position* of second assistants to males would close another of the already slender roods to promotion for male assistants, and offer still less inducement to men to enter and stay in a profession which has already been unable to oifor sufficient inducement to have ns demands supplied. Should the Board disrate the writers it would be doing its best to drive the male assistants from their profession, a policy all boards were anxious to avoid, and they would respectfully point out that ihey were the experienced teachers to whom the Board must look for its future heads of schools. 4. The lady assistants teach lower and easier classes,, work shorter hours, and have none of their former outside responsibilities. In conclusion the writers pointed out their claims to higher positions than lady assistants, and emphasised the fact ‘that if they were disrated they would have no prospects for many years if they stayed in their profession, and marriage would be out

•■ff the question. In accordance with notice of motion, Mr. McLernon moved—“ That the ac lion of the Board, at last meeting, in lowering the status of Miss Brown (Napier), Miss Rosie (Hastings), and Miss Matheson (Gisborne) from the positions of second to those ol third assistants at such schools, be rescinded, and that the Board reinstates the mid teachers in their former positions with the salary-pertaining thereto under life Education Act Amendment Act, 1908.” Mr. McLernon said that when the scheme prepared by the inspectors regarding the alterations in the status of lady teachers was submitted to the Board, the members were not really cognisant of the details of which they were approving. At the January meeting there was nothing to lead members to understand i hat there was to be a reduction of one status of lady teachers. The .scheme was submitted in order to give more encouragement to male teachers. utterly regardless of the lady teachers. This policy of the Board was opposed to its action of the past, aid it would prove a most unwise step in the cause of education. It was not pursued by other boards, who retained, the lady teachers as second assistants*: One of the lady teachers mentioned had been 261 years in the service ol the Board. It was true that she had been teaching in the infant department hut that was where, he considered,’the qualities of an experienced lady teacher were required. It would lie unfair to agree to the system being continued any longer, and it would be a just thing to reinstate these ladies to their old positions. The argument that males should be encouraged and that the minor positions should be held by ladies was unsound, as they would then get young men, who would remain in office until it suited them to leave. . * , , The Rev'. Mr. Grant seconded the motion. He said the motion was to rescind a resolution of the Board, the effect of which they did not know. lie deprecated the way in which lady teachers had been spoken of by the three male teachers. Not one of the writers probably bad passed more than the Sixth Standard. They to6k up positions as pupil teachers, and they managed, to their credit, to obtain certificates. These men considered that the Board could not do without them, and that lady teachers were not so qualified to teach the upper standards. In his opinion it' was ten times easier to teach the Fifth or Sixth Standards than the first. The schools were com. prised of girls and boys in equal numbers, and each had as much right to be considered as the other. What the male teachers required was to have three males at the head of the staff, with a lady in the fourth position. What position then could the girls of a school be supposed to hold? He held that ladies should stand higher in the staffs as representing the girls. There was no argument in the claim that the ladies were unable to enforce discipline. Did they desire discipline to bo taught by brute force ? Invariably in examinations the ladies stood head and shoulders above the males. In future he would oppose to the utmost the appointment of male teachers to the first three positions in the schools. The three male teachers mentioned stated that they were the men from whom headmasters must be appointed. He

was opposed to the principle of appointing headmasters from class teachers, but considered they should .be sent into the country to take charge of schools there before aspiring to high positions in the towns. Mr. Morgan supported the-motion. He contended that every position in a school, with the exception of that of headmaster, should be open to every female provided that she could show that she was qualified to do the work. He could not agree with the scheme framed by the inspectors. According to the discussion in the House when the Act was being passed, the feeling was that all positions should be open to females.

Mr Whittington opposed the motion. He said tluire was a good deal of sentiment in the discussion. It was evident to his mind that the position had been misconstrued to a great extent. These ladies were assistants, not 'mistresses, and they were now getting £5 more'per annum, excepting Miss Mafcheson. Unless the Board offered an adequate salary they-could not obtain suitable male teachers, and an instance of this difficulty was given 4 at chc January meeting. Mr. Erickson also opposed the motion.

Sir William Russell said he was in sympathy with the ladies, but the principle that males should occupy the three first positions was the right one. ft seemed to him that the responsibility of control of the children out of the school building rested upon the male teachers. He did not think the Board would like to have a female apoointod to take charge of a school of 100 or 400 children., while if a man was ,econd assistant, he would he quite competent to take charge of a school,. The chairman read a telegram received from the Department stating that their previous letter did not, of course, prevent the Board from making changes ..which were within the liscretion of.the Board. “It may be ts well, however,” the telegram continued, “to bear in mind that any transfers or re-transfers made after December 31st,-1908, are now appointments., and the teachers ,_in question begin at minimum.” The motion was then put and carried, Messrs. McLernon, Morton, and Grant voting for it, and Messrs. Whittington, and Erickson against it.