page 12

NZEI representative?

Of recent weeks interested parties have been making submissions to the Committee of the Registration of Teachers headed by Sir John Marshall. It has been interesting to note the difference of opinions between the New Zealand Educational Institute (the Primary Teachers Body) and some individual teachers who have in effect said that the Institute's National Executive has done the dirty on its members.

The Committee was set up last year by the Minister of Education, to advise him on the current support and proposals for the annual registration of all teachers and the setting up of internal disciplinary procedures that would in most cases be administered by the NZEI. Many of the NZEI's top dogs have been strong supporters of registration because they believe that it is the final step in putting teachers in the "professional" class. As a recent NZEI circular said "Registration will be the capstone to the structure of professionalism which has been the goal of the Institute since 1951."

However, somewhere along the line the leadership has got out of step with the membership to the extent that at the Committee's hearings on the registration of teachers, the NZEI was claiming that its members supported one thing while rank and file members were saying that the NZEI leadership was misleading the Committee and misrepresenting its members.

The argument centres on two matters. The annual registration of teachers and the setting up of disciplinary procedures and a code of ethics.

The registration of teachers is a touchy issue. The proposals are that every teacher will have to apply annually for a licence to teach and that on the gaining of the licence the teacher's name will be entered upon a register. All applications for registration would be vetted by a Teachers' Registration Council that would be made up of NZEI Counsellors, and National Executive members. The crunch is that when looking at the composition of the National Executive and the Institute counsellors, the vast majority of them are Principals or their equivalents. The basic scale teachers who comprise the bulk of the membership are very poorly represented. The question being asked is, just who does the NZEI represent.? It would seem that the controlling interests in the organisation are the Principals, a group that has more in common with the employers than with the teacher in the class room. The fear being expressed by many teachers is whether the teachers are going to be judged by their peers in any disciplinary cases or whether they will be judged by their bosses made up to look like their peers.

One of the pernicious side effects of the Teacher Registration scheme is that it would also enable the Teacher Registration Council to refuse the registration of teachers whom it thought were unfit to teach. However, there are already procedures in existence that cater for that eventuality. It can only be concluded that the Registration business would also be used as a weapon against dissenting and disaffected minorities within the teaching ranks. In the past the NZEI National Executive has come under as much criticism for its spineless representation of members' views, and the sell-out of its members on a variety of issues as have the Education Boards and Minister of Education.

A further twist is when the NZEI 'also recommended that teachers be deregistered for breaches of the Code of Ethics of the teacher organisation concerned. Past history shows that NZEI is not averse to holding good replicas of kangaroo courts. Last year a teacher was charged with having breached the Code of Ethics, and was called to answer charges laid by an Institute Counsellor. However without the teacher concerned being able to defend himself against the charges, nor in fact even being told what the charges were. What fun the new Star chamber could have.

Other measures supported by the NZEI Executive included a neat supply and demand technique — the lapsing of registration. The proposal would have the effect of debarring any teachers that have not had a permanent teaching position for three years from re-entering teaching. Any teachers so affected wishing to return to teaching would be required to undergo a retraining scheme. Thus teachers who had left to have or look after families, or even who had been relief teaching for three years would automatically be stopped from rejoining the profession.

The net effect of all these measures is of course to bring about a more structured and authoritarian bureaucracy over basic scale teachers. Their 'union' the NZEI, an organisation controlled by foremen and managers (Principals) has shown that it is only too happy to fall into line with these measures and has shown that it is in fact one of the most ardent proponents of the various measures. All this and more; and not once has it been seen necessary to fully discuss the matters with the rank and file members. Many have asked whether the NZEI National Executive would sell its members down the river. The reply appears to be that it already has done so. Having concocted a policy, the National Executive would appear to have fronted up to the Committee on Teacher Registration and said that it was the members' views.

Even those teachers who had a vague inkling of what was going on were stalled when the Executive said, ". . . the submissions presented to the Committee can not be made public until they have been formally received and heard by the Committee." It seems that the members will be the last to find out what has been going on. By that time it may well be too late.

There is little hope that the Committee itself will see that it has been led up the creek. The chairman is Sir John Marshall, who as Deputy Prime Minister in 1969 said that a film showing insanitary toilets, decaying buildings, cramped classrooms was mere propaganda. Also sitting on the Committee is Mr Bruce Kelly, a long standing member of the National Executive.

All the same individual teachers have made submissions to the Committee. In essence they said, firstly there was no need to change the present system of registration and disciplinary procedures as embodied in the 1976 Education Act, since these were adequate. Secondly, there was no great demand from classroom teachers for any such changes to be made, thirdly the NZEI National Executive did not have the mandate to make submissions and the views that were expressed had never been fully debated and decided by members.

The actions of the NZEI National Executive do not bode well for the operation of the Teacher Registration Council which the NZEI hope to dominate. This episode is not isolated in showing the dubious loyalty and service that NZEI leaders have given to their members. In their search for the professional tag, the NZEI Executive has given little thought to the effect on teaching standards and the children attending schools. As one submission put it, "the children, people, teachers of New Zealand are best served by the present provisions and alteration of those provisions is too great a price to pay for the satisfaction of some teachers craving after status."

— Education Correspondent