This is a difficult story to write even though it happened over 110 years in 1907 in Subiaco. This is the story of a female teacher speaking out against alleged favouritism and denied financial rewards she believed she was owed by her employer The Education Department. This is a tragic story in that this female teacher felt so alone after her experience that she resigned from her job, tried to commit suicide and leave her two children without a mother.
Alice Howe was a qualified teacher (with certificates in education from New South Wales and Western Australia). She had moved to Western Australia from New South Wales in 1895 with her husband and got a job with the Western Australian Education Department. Her husband died in 1898. She worked as an assistant in the Infants's School at Subiaco State School.
In 1907 Alice Howe made allegations against Mr. Andrews, the Head of the Education Department for favouritism in examinations to progress and financial rewards that accompanied that were given to other teachers but not to her. The allegations were investigated and they were dismissed even though some of the facts were admitted. Alice Howe resigned from the Education Department. She attempted to appeal against the decision and clear her name by writing to the Public Service Commissioner and Executive Council of the Education Department to have her case reconsidered.
The Geraldton Guardian wrote on 24 October, 1907 about the injustices "...The real injustice to which teachers are subjected is in connection with the annual examinations for higher classification. The examination for the lower classes— the 'B' and the 'C' grades are said to be conducted fairly enough, but there does seem to be some doubt as to whether the same can be said of the 'A' grade. Teachers assert that candidates in every way competent are deliberately plucked time after time, irrespective of the excellence of their papers, because the Department is not short of 'A' grade teachers. In other words, teachers are encouraged to study for these examinations, when it is not intended under any circumstance to let them through. And this goes on year after year, until the Department needs 'A' grade teachers, and the required number are allowed to pass. If these allegations are true, then the Department is guilty of a breach of faith. The remedy is to appoint an impartial examining body, independent of the Department, who will pass those candidates whose work entitles them to the possession of the 'A' certificate..."
The following articles were published in The Daily News newspaper that included the allegations made by Alice Howe and her response to the investigation. There are two letters included in this article from Alice Howe. The first one challenging the findings of Public Service Commissioner's was written on 24 September, 1907 and theathe second one her son found in her possession after she was found poisoned in Subiaco State School. They provide insight into the challenges of a working woman in a state school in the early 1900's.
I have copied the articles here. They are from Trove the database of the National Library of Australia.
Daily News (Perth, WA : 1882 - 1950), Saturday 19 October 1907, page 11.
"...THE CHARGES.
The charges preferred by Mrs A. Howe against Mr. Andrews can be summarised as follows: -
(a) That Mr. Andrews has been guilty of favoritism in the promotion of, and in granting privileges to teachers. (b) That Mr. Andrews allowed certain teachers who had failed in one subject at an examination to be considered as having passed in all subjects, provided they passed (at an Intermediate examination) in the subject they had failed in, and that this privilege was denied to Mrs. Howe, who was required to take all subjects.
(c) That Mr. Andrews subsequently rectified this, but whilst allowing the others (to take the subject they failed in at an intermediate examination in March, compelled Mrs. Howe to wait for the ordinary examination in August.
(d) That by reason of this difference of treatment Mrs. Howe did not receive the increments as early as she otherwise would have done.
(e) That Mr. Andrews as regards Mrs. Howe has ignored important clauses in the regulations dealing with seniority and classification, thereby retarding the legitimate advancement of Mrs. Howe.
THE REPORT.
From the evidence taken on oath, and from official files, the Public Service Commissioner reported as follows: —
(a) That Mr. Andrews has not been guilty of favouritism in the promotion of and granting privileges to teachers.
(b) That Mr. Andrews did allow certain teachers who had failed in one subject at one examination to be considered as having passed in all subjects provided they passed in the subject, they had failed in at an intermediate examination, and that Mrs. Howe, owing to a clerical error made by the clerk whose, duty it was to calculate percentages, was told that she would have to take all subjects over again, but immediately the mistake was discovered she was granted the same privileges as the others, although had the department desired to do so they might have taken advantage of the fact that she obtained a shadow under 60 per cent, of marks.
(c) That Mr. Andrews' action in allowing certain teachers to take the subjects they failed in at an intermediate examination in March, when Mrs. Howe was compelled to wait for the ordinary examination in August, was quite justified, and others were then and there dealt with similarly to Mrs. Howe. No one was allowed to sit at the intermediate examination in March for written subjects but those who had passed in all subjects except drawing were permitted to complete their examination in March instead of waiting till August. It is understandable that the department would be willing to hold an Intermediate examination in drawing, whilst objecting, owing to the work and trouble involved to hold an intermediate examination in written subjects.
(d) It is not true that Mrs. Howe, having to wait until August to pass the subjects she failed in, lost an increment which was granted to others. Mrs. Howe does not realise that she was at the maximum of her class, and that those who got increases were below the maximum, of their class.
(e) Mr. Andrews has not ignored important clauses in the regulations, dealing with seniority and classification, thereby retarding the legitimate advancement of Mrs. Howe. I am satisfied that it would not have been in the interest of the State to have advanced Mrs. Howe, to any important position requiring in addition, to educational qualities the necessary ability to administer, organise, and manage the staff and children in a large school. All the witnesses, including, those called by Mrs. Howe herself, confirmed this.
I further wish to add that the department has during the past 11 years treated Mrs. Howe with great consideration, and in doing so has exercised much patience and forbearance. Mrs. Howe expressed the opinion, that it was cruel of the department, knowing that it would not promote her to be headmistress of a good school to permit her to sit for the 'A' certificate.
Mr. Andrews, however, successfully pointed put that there were advantages of a financial nature which followed an 'A' certificate, apart from the position of headmistress, vide regulation 69 in 1904 regulations, and No. 71 in 1907 regulations.
Signed
M. E. Jull Public Service Commissioner.
Daily News (Perth, WA : 1882 - 1950), Saturday 19 October 1907, page 11
LETTER TO THE COMMISSIONER.
After receiving a copy of the Commissioner's report, Mrs. Howe addressed the following letter to him:- Subiaco Infants' School, Subiaco W.A. September 24, 1907. I have carefully perused that portion of your report which has been submitted me, and find false statements in three paragraphs. After careful deliberation, I beg to inform you that on two points in this part you have been grossly misled and misinformed. First, in that other teachers were treated as I was in the matter of supplementary examination. Second, Second, in the fact that no papers were set for this examination. Papers were set, and all teachers, except myself, who had failed in one subject were notified that they would be called upon. Subsequently, for some mysterious reason, the two candidates I mentioned, Messrs Poynton and Lee, were not summoned to the general examination, but were called to the office of the chief inspector, and underwent an informal examination there, in April. The falseness of the filed evidence shows how little reliance can be placed on any evidence from the late Inspector-General of Schools. His remark on my appointment to the Canning Mills Scliool is another case in point. He sent me to fill a gap caused by the absence of two teachers, a man and his wife. He had himself recommended leave to the teachers in question. The duties were greatly in excess of that set down by the regulations as the duty of one teacher. You have also used in evidence against me that I am subject to fits of exhaustion. In nearly 12 years of hard service only twice, have these interfered in any way with my school duties, and were then due to the fact that I taught in an overcrowded room, where the number of children was greatly in excess of the regulation number for one teacher. I am prepared to furnish medical evidence to the department that, given favorable conditions, these attacks would not be likely to interfere with my work in any way. The after effects are due to the severe concussion of falling heavily. The drug I use is a compound of bromide and strychnine prescribed by several men. I also beg to point out that as my grade was raised by the inspector general and I received the appointment of first assistant in one of the leading schools of the State, and was subsequently asked to act as head mistress. I had reasonable grounds to expect further promotion. A certain allowance is due to me for the irritation I have felt, and given way to from the numerous errors of the department, and I think a close examination will show that any socalled consideration extended to me by the department has a background which puts a different aspect on it. The Inspector general saw before hand, and was prepared for all the evidence I could offer on the other hand, I did not know, nor have I yet seen all the evidence on which you have arrived at your conclusion. I am therefore appealing to both you and the Hon the Minister to give me fair play in the matter and allow me to see, the file and make certain comments on technicalities with which you are unfamiliar. I think you will find on further and closer examination that I am right on the points I have brought under your notice as false, and can understand, that you accepted as I did at first the file in good faith. I cannot explain to you the emotion that possesses me when I see such false evidence given against me, but you must not blame me unduly for any efforts I make to establish the truth. I beg therefore that before your report or my resignation be accepted I may comment on some of the evidence disclosed by the report. It would be a grave matter if the inaccuracies I complain of were allowed to stand. I also beg to state that it was because irregularities in dealing with examinations had been suspected that the Teachers' Association asked for a board of examiners, also because Miss Sutton's leave was considered very unfair that the association immediately asked that the terms on which leave could be given should be clearly defined as leave for study had in former cases been denied. I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant. (Signed). ALICE HOWE.
Daily News (Perth, WA : 1882 - 1950), Saturday 19 October 1907, page 11
FAREWELL LETTER TO HER SON.
The following letter was discovered by Mrs. Howe's only son, Hedley. In a trunk after his mother's removal to the hospital,
