HEADMASTERS RIGHTS.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume XLVI, Issue 10672, 17 February 1926, Page 8

HEADMASTERS RIGHTS.

! EXAMINATION OF PUPILS. THE RECENT ALLEGATIONS. CHRISTCHURCH, This Day. Allegations made at a recent meeting of the Canterbury School Committees' Assoetetbn. regarding the procedure adopted by some headmasters ia: connection with the presentation or children for the proficiency examination have iiot met with approval in some quarters,, and at a meeting of the Association, last evening letters were received from- the Headmasters Association and the- New Zealand Educational Institute asking for an explanation. . The Christchurch Headmasters' Association wrote- stating that the serious allegations which had been made against certain head teachers could not be allowed to pass unnoticed, and it/ was suggested that the School Committees' Association should meet the Headmasters' Association so that the charges might be thoroughly sifted. The New Zealand Educational In. stitute also wrote in connection with the statements that had been made. As the matter was apt to cause reflections to be cast on teachers generally, a request was made that the institute should be provided with details of the cases mentioned'. Among the allegations that were made was one that some teachers of Standard VI. bad.told their dull pupils to stay away fi"om school while the proficiency examination was on, so that a. higher percentage cf passes might h-e gained. One member had said he knew that some teachers coached up Fifth Standard children cor- the proficiency examination, and had put 'them into Standard VI. for the proficiency examination, while .slower Standard VI. pupils had been put down into Stand- j ard V. till after the examination. By, .getting mono -wpils to pass the examination the teachers would get a higher; grading. ~'.,, , , ,• I It was decided that a delegation j from the Association confer with re-j nresentatives of the Headmasters' As-; sociation, it teiiig held that there, would be no necessity to meet repre-j sentatives of the Institute also. | The secretary (Mr H. Orbell), who had interviewed Mr McLeod, Inspector i of Schools in the Canterbury district, j with regard bo< the allegations, said: that Mr McLeod had told him that the headmasters had full power to , place pupils in any class at any time, hut this' classification might be reviewed bvgjftn inspector who mighj if ho fit, order a different classification. "Pupils not really fit for promotion were sometimes put up into Standard VI. on trial in order to

give them as good a chance as possible, and they might be kept there until near the proficiency examination, and then if the headmaster judged that the pupil had not made good, there was nothing in the regulations requiring that the pupil had to be presented at the examination. There was no regulation governing the period during which a pupil might be so on trial. Inspectors considered that, in general, pupils- who had for the greater part of the year been instructed in Standard VI., and had attended regularly, should be presented for the proficiency examination.

Mr McLeod had expressed the view that much misunderstanding would be avoided if parents would more frequently discuss matters of common interest with headmasters and teachers, as scholars' reports to parents were sometimes unwittingly inaccurate. The headmaster's status was affected by the percentage of passes only in conjunction with other work —that was, if all his other work was good, his status was not affected by a low percentage of proficiency passes. 'A high percentage made no difference financially.