The Press. WEDNESDAY, MAY 17, 1893. THE STANDARD REGULATIONS.

Press, Volume L, Issue 8485, 17 May 1893, Page 4

The Press. WEDNESDAY, MAY 17, 1893. THE STANDARD REGULATIONS.

The Schoolmaster of March 15th last drew attention to some notices of motion given by the Hon. Mr. McGregor on the Qtago Board of Education relative to the standard system, in primary sohools. These 'proposals have been submitted to the Otago Inspectors, and\ we wish to notice tbe following significant passage in their report:— "One change we should be glad to see made, viz., the substitution of passes in subjects for passes in standards. By ttfiiH;;%• mean that passing or failing iv a staudard should be abolished, and that in estimating a pupil's proficiency, as well as in estimating the efficiency of a teacher's work, 'passes in subjects alouo should be taken into account." This system, the report adds, which was ia vogue years ago, always worked well, because " under it no teacher was robbed of the credit of any bit of good work done merely because it did uot amount to a certaiu arbitrary total fixed on beforehand." "The standard system,'* the report goes on, "is part and paroelof the system of payment by results, without which it is as meaningless as it is pupils and teaohers." The subjects in which the standard examinations have to be passed are divided into -** Pass" pud Class" subjects. In the first of these each child must pass individually. In the " class" subjects the general proficiency of the whole class is alone taken into account. The success of the teacher depends in the eyes of tbe Education Department upon the percentage of " passes 1 ' that he can get in the "pass" and compulsory subjects. The tendency of this system is thus to drive the teaoher to overwork his pupils in certaiu subjects at the expense of others; and he is impelled to this course by the most powerful of all motives, the desire for advancement or self-preservation. If our readers examine the syllabus of subjeots for standard examinations, we believe that they will agree with us in wondering not that there is any injudicious or mechanical teaching uuder the system, but that there is not much more.

The present arraugeineut seems to us to ensure that every- subject shall be in danger of being sacrificed to any other. For instance, in the case of drawing, an amount that seemed satisfactory to the framers of the Byllabus has been prescribed in each standard. But if one combines the quantities of drawing, geography, and ajithmaticv set; in, aay, the fourfeh standard aa pass subjects, witbL the amount* of English grammar and history _ad eoienoa required aa class subjects, one must admit that to fulfil the requirements of the scheme the teacher must constantly saorifi_e. tha technical to the purely English subjects, or the English to the science and drawing. One thing aeeme certain that, as a mere matter of quantity t the amounts of worfc -required in the upper standard* make an impartial treatment; of all the subjects impossible. And this, we believe, is the way in Which a rational excuse may be found for. the periodical outcry against *«<«-_&" or *overpre«Bure, ,> The teacher finds himself unable to keep his subjects going on all fours, and whether he is ambitious, or afraid of the Inspectors, or merely conscientious, he must jdo l*i§ beat to whip up the stragglers in the subjects ; and he can often, see"no way out of the difficulty but work after hours or an increased list of "home lessons." Under these unfortunate circumstances, •we repeat, the teacher and the taught are alike victims of a system so mistaken that makes good teaching needlessly hard where it does not make H impoesible. The position of a teacher in our

public schools is certaiuly a difficult oue. He has to face the responsibility of putting large classes—sometimes of eighty or 100 children—through; a wide syllabus of heterogeneous subjects in such a way that tbe great majority of the pupils shall at the standard examination reach a certain fixed level in marks. And; what riy j more important, he must understand'j that his position, his professional reputation, and his future as a teacher depend almost entirely upon the percentage of "passes" that he can secure. Ac to this first difficulty, the marks gained by the pupils, we may be allowed to refer again to the very rational views of -tha Qtago Inspectors embodied in their report for IS9I :—"lt is one of the evils of the standard system that it creates momentous distinctions where there is but little real difference. The boy "who answers fairly and passes be- ! comes a sort of hero—the one who is perhaps 5 or 10 per cent, below him fails, and is thought to have learned I nothing. To suppose this is, however, ! a great mistake, for the difference in their actual attainments may be nil." This is the evidence of trained experts, And surely this method of judging results solely by a numerical staudard bears evident signs of its own inadequacy. Examinations are doubtless necessary features of school work, and we believe that a judicious examination can very thoroughly reveai ! the merits and weaknesses of teaching. Bub it seems preposterous on the face lof it that a boy who gets, say '40 per cent, in arithmetic, should pass while a boy whose general work throughout the year, and average I mathematical intelligence may be of a far higher grade, must be kept back for a whole year, because ou that particular paper he got only 39 per ceut. And suoh " results " become even more absurd when they are applied comparatively:—As when in the case of some of our secondary schools, the status of a teacher is supposed to be affected laj the fact that his. form got on the average one and a half per ceut. more this year than last—a decision which implies a comparison of absolutely different pieces of work aud different sets of boys. Truly the love of the percentage becomes in some minds a dangerous enthusiasm. But tbe State school teacher seems marked from the outset as the chief sufferer by the staudard system. He is told by the Education Department, by the Boards, Committees and Inspectors —"Take these children—eduoate them in the highest aud best way — develop all thoir faculties—let there jbe no mechanical teaching, no uniu; telligent learning—no " oram," and no over-pressure; but teach them accord-" ing to the syllabus you must, and get certain per-centagea tbey shall—or out you must go." The teacher is urged in such a magaziue as the •'Journal of Education " to keep steadily before his eyes the example of Dr. Arhold and Mr. Thring, and the great apostles of education. But the Education Department, like the worldwise Quaker to his son, constantly whispers in his ear, f* Get percentages arid passes—sensibly and ratioually, if you can—but in any case and for your own sake, get passes and i Considering the nature of their worjk/ the Condition of the standard syllabus, j and the serious consequences J of failure in this process of | percentage-grinding, we think that! we have good cause to be proud of the general good quality of our public sohool teaching, and the high average level of intelligence displayed among the pupils. ■'■"'? W4 think then that the time has come to remedy some of those obvious evils, We with the Qtago Xjvf speotors that tbe present standard system should be abolished. Let all the pas ß subjects become "class" subjects. Let the Inspectors be instructed to judge of the teacher's work by the general results gained by the whale/ class in all the subject* in which Kir instructs thera. The teachers will then no longer need to give extra time aud home work in arithmetic,' because each boy naUst pasiUodiylV'. dually in this, while he may negleot history or grammar in which only general results count. And above alt let this absurd reverencef or percentages die out and disappear. It needs no argument to prove that a numerical standard, arbitrarily fixed, does not necessarily imply merit iv those who attain it or ignorance in those who fail. Except iv competitive, examina* tions, the general excellence of the work presented for examination should pass or exclude all candidates." If such a change were made the children j would gain by it to an indefinite! degree. The teacher, no longer con* strained at his own imminent risk to j produce certain numerical results, could give more soope to originality of method, to that personal element in instruction which constitutes the chief interest and vitality in teaching. And in this matter the general public couicl do much for the cause of education. We are sufficiently familiar with tbe. men who think that anyone can edit a newspaper to be ready to sympathise with teachers when they have to submit to dictation from those who. obviously do not in, the least understand what a teacher's duties are. When Boards . and Inspectors and parents are alike willing to accept general results instead of mathematical labels as Indicative of good and successful work, then we will hear nothing more about " cram " and little about over-pressure, and we will be certain that we are getting the beat possible return out of oar education system.