Our Education System.

Press, Volume LVII, Issue 17222, 12 August 1921, Page 6

Our Education System.

"We gather from a statement made in Auckland by the Minister of Education and from a report supplied to the Minister by the Director of Education that tlie damaging criticisms passed by the examiners on the work of the candidates who sat for the junior and senior j national scholarships, intermediate, and public service entrance examinations were intended less for the public eye than "for the benefit of teachers and "examiners." Mr' Parr said that these extracts "did" not give a complete [idea '• of the opinion of the examiners upon "the work done." That may be so, "but it is of less consequence t u the public to know in what directions the examiners spoke well of the work of the I candidates than to be told of the weak- 1 nesses of the education system as revealed in the examination papers. Mr Caughley makes this point in regard to Ihe intermediate examination for pupils who have been two years at a high school that 80 per cent, of the pupils gain the senior free place by the decision of the headmaster of an inspeo ! tor on their work at school and do not need to sit for examination. It is to j the work of the remaining 20 per cent, who do ait for the examination that the examiners referred so severely, and it is contended that these pupils are not a fair average of the secondary cchool product. Admitting that, it can yet be fairly argued, we think, that the examiners should not be able to describe all the papera as being "poor in qual- " ity*' and to comment on the bad spelling, ignorance of grammar, ridiculous answers to arithmetic questions, and &o on, shown inthepapers of these candidates. Regarding the junior national «*holarahip examination, which, as Mr Parr said, is the teat of primary school instruction, Mr Caughley declared that though this standard should be higher lie was agreeably surprised to find such good work done in many oases. The criticisms of the examiners on this ex* amination, it may be remembered, included reference to Its woeful ignorance of the geography of New Zealand displayed by the candidates and the paucity of cnswerS in the arithmetic papers that were "really well done." We do not pretend to reconcile the difference between thesfc two opinions. The Director of Education, however, has a good deal v> say about the change in tHe system of instruction in our primary schools that has taken place in recent years, the old method of learning oy rote having given place to one which dexlopa the individual power of initiative "The ldfid of instruction which '"conforms reasonably to.modern metliftods of primary education does not lend itself as readily to tests by writ-. " ten examination aa did the old style • of instruction, where the presentation '' of a mass of information was the pre"dominant aim. For this reason it may " fairly be claimed that the work in the " Bchools is Considerably better than can 11 be shown through a written examina- " tion test." That is to say, that whereas the system of teaching has.changed, the system of testing the results of that teaching is the same as used to be applied to the old system of instruction, and that it is not fait to blame the teaching for what is re&lly the fault of the method of examination. In that case, is it not time that the examination system was brought into line with the teaching system? Obviously the present arrangement does not indicate the quality of the instruction received by the children. For ourselves, we are not so satisfied that the present methods of leaching are a great improvement on the old ones, assome of their exponents claim, and i-e have strbng doubts as to whether the boy or, girl of 15 or 16 of to-day is as well grounded in the essentials of education as were their fathers and mothers at a similar age. What Mr Caughley terms "the acquisition of "useless information which was mere "mental lumber," which he Says was the rule twenty years ago, may not have, been the best kind of education, but it [waa at least no worse thaa thq smatter-^

ing of a number of subjects whichjs too often the result of modern methods. These undoubtedly place greater responsibility on tho teacher, and if the results are not satisfactory, he or she must- bear a large part of the blame, and if as Mr Caughley Eays, a standard of efficiency such as few critics could wmdeinn is reached in some schools, clearly it rests with the teachers as a class to bring all schools up to the level of the best, and to prove that the "im-

■ proved kind of instruction", is really an improvement, and not merely a change.