EXAMINERS EXAMINED

Auckland Star, Volume LXVII, Issue 31, 6 February 1936, Page 6

EXAMINERS EXAMINED

COLLABORATION PRINCIPLE. | NEW ZEALAND'S SUGGESTIONS. j (By I'KOEKSSOK W. ANDERSON.) . j In Saturday"s issue, February 1, appears, under the heading "Examiners Exa111511<?<1. an account of (lie views of certain eminent I'.nglisli critics of the university entrance exaniinntions as conducted in England. Their remarks are of great interest in their bearing upon similar problems in s New Zealand and are, in view of the handling of the question by our university senate, of 'an even greater interest in what they do not recommend than in what they do. Sir Herbert Austin, a prominent fissure in the English motor business, and Mr. W. X. Marcy! described as a well-known examiner, agree in recommending facilities for the submission of rejected scripts to another examiner. This proposal is evidently based on the fact that in recent trials different authorities have passed conflicting judgments on identical work submitted to them. Mr. Marcv, however, goes further in recommending a certain American university system as "so sound that it is almost impossible for a bad result to be arrived at." Under it "all the readers are gathered in the library at one of the universities . . . and if a reader marks a paper below a pass mark it is at once handed to a second reader, who marks the paper for himself. If the two markings do not agree, a third reader marks the paper." (I understand that the subsequent reader in each case gives his reasons to the reader liveceding in the event of a change in the result.) Mending, Not Ending. It is noteworthy, first of all, that there is here no suggestion of any substitute for the examination system. The light-hearted proposal of New Zealand's educational Lazarus, the "Atmorc Report," to replace this system everywhere by the method of awarding public educational opportunities or testimonies in accordance with the personal impressions of school masters and inspectors gets no support from these English authorities. Apparently it has not even occurred to them to question the need for a system of examinations as an objective and impartial guarantee of educational qualifications. The present system may require to be mended, but emphatically not ended. It is further to be observed, more especially in considering the American system referred to. that these critics of the British practice relv, as a remedy for the conflicting estimates that it allows to creep in. upon the mutual criticism of the examiners, the men who know the subjects. There is no hint at all of recourse to a "standard" outside that of personal knowledge of the subject, like the famous New Zealand remedy, the scaling system, by which a constant proportion of candidates may be shown to pass each year, or deficiencies in the school work in particular branches may lie screened from view. ff, as urged by the "Christehureh Star-Sun," the New Zealand senate were to apply to the last matriculation results, by way of the "immediate test" the paper calls for, the American process just described, it would be interesting to see (if indeed we ever got to know of it from a senate which does everything "in committee") what would happen were a candidate "failed ' by successive readers and then passed by the operation of "the scale." This example may serve to bring out the difference in principle between reforms designed to secure justice to the candidate and devices for bolstering up the examination records of secondary school headmasters. "Atomised" Questions. There is, airain, nothing in the remedies proposed bv the English authorities to encourage or justify the adoption of those methods of examining by the setting of atomised questions which are" the characteristic mark of the "new examiner." and which are necessary to make the scaling system work at all. Much less is there anvth'ing to support our senate in its playful way of first sacking the examiner who endeavours' to keep the standard from sinking to zero, and then looking for regulations, arising out of a just dawning and still confused apprehension of the above requirement of the system, for the examiner to have "broken" in prospect. Finally it should be noted that nothing stands in the way of the adoption in New Zealand of the system of collaboration of examiners in a single spot, save finance. If the senate, or the Government, will pay the fares of the readers to one centre, it can be done right away.