The Press FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 5, 1937. Numerical Grading of Teachers

Press, Volume LXXIII, Issue 22242, 5 November 1937, Page 10

The Press FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 5, 1937. Numerical Grading of Teachers

Recent issues of “National Education,” the official organ of the New Zealand Educational Institute, have contained welcome evidence of a growing dissatisfaction among teachers with the existing system of grading and inspection. In the November issue, for instance, significant prominence is given to an interview with Professor W. H. Gould, head of the education department of Victoria University College. Professor Gould’s views are sufficiently indicated by the following passage;

I do not think we will ever get away from what we have been doing in the past until the inspection system as we knov/ it 13 “one away with altogether. The growing need today—it is unsatisfied —is for educational l® a u er ship of a high order. Inspection as such does nothing for education. Doing away with inspection involves doing away with numerical grading.

The pages of “National Education” and the discussions at recent conferences of the New Zealand Educational Institute show that this view is held by a substantial body of primary school teachers. Moreover, the institute itself has already begun to discuss possible alternatives to numerical grading. There is, of course, nothing new or surprising in the view that numerical grading is the source of most of the defects of the present system of primary education in New Zealand. The same view has been expressed by almost every educationist of any note who has visited this country in the last 10 years. But it is interesting and encouraging that the New Zealand Educational Institute, which was primarily responsible for the adoption of numerical grading and whicn for many years fervently defended the device, should now be taking the lead in the movement for its abolition. Since the institute has always exercised great influence over the formation of education policy, it is possible to feel reasonably certain that changes are imminent. Whether these changes are wholly beneficial will depend in a large measure on the substitutes proposed for numerical grading. At present the institute seems to be playing with the idea of a national appointments board, it can be said at once that such an institution would inevitably perpetuate most of the wors features of numerical grading—reliance on more or less mechanical methods of assessing the ability of teachers and disregard tor the special needs of particular schoois and particular localities.