ACCREDITING SYSTEM

Press, Volume LXXX, Issue 24160, 20 January 1944, Page 6

ACCREDITING SYSTEM

.APPROVED LIST OF SCHOOLS SENATE DEBATES PUBLICATION The report of the committee on accrediting was presented by the ViceChancellor (Sir Thomas Hunter) to the Senate of the University of New Zealand in Christchurch yesterday and adopted. When the principle of accrediting was accepted, stated the report, it was deemed advisable that the scheme should be brought into operation as soon as possible. “The Senate might have waited until the liaison officers had been appointed, and had time to report on the schools,” said Sir Thomas Hunter. “This would have delayed’ the coming into operation of the scheme for some years. It was decided, therefore, to draw up immediately a list of schools which could, if they so desired, accredit candidates for the new entrance examination. This list will be subject to annual revision by the Senate, and the names of schools may be added to, or deleted from, the list by the Senate after consideration of the reports of the liaison officers.”

In determining the list for 1944, he continued, the University had to take into account a number of factors affecting the ability of a school to maintain a constant standard of judgment in its accrediting. Among those the more important were: (1) the size of the school in so far as it affected the number of candidates likely to be presented each year at both the school certificate level and the _ new higher level demanded for University entrance: and, (2) the location of the school in relation to other schools providing special facilities for sixth form work in the subjects required tor the new University entrance examination. Committee’s Report

It must be emphasised, the report proceeded, that the omission of a school from the list in no way reflected upon its efficiency: it simply meant that, in the opinion of the Senate, that school would find difficulty in fixing and maintaining a consistent judgment year by year in its recommendations for accrediting, or that the board of governors of the school had declined to have the school placed on the list. Any school that desired to accredit, it was stated, should make application to the University, which would consider its claims when it had before it the report of the liaison officers. When the matter was originally introduced by Sir Thomas Hunter at the morning session of the Senate, Mr W. H. Cocker, of Auckland, suggested that a list of schools which had been accredited might, on completion, be published.

Sir Thomas Hunter; All the replies are not in yet. While he was not keen on the proposal, said the Director of Education (Dr. C. 1 E. Beeby), he would raise no formal objection. Sir Thomas Hunter: We will give the list to the press when it is completedIt had been suggested, replied Mr Cocker, that the Senate was not prepared to place all its cards on the table. If the list of schools were made public, he added, it would remove a suspicion which he considered unwarranted. He moved that that course be adopted. Mr W. A. Armour seconded the amendment to the report. Mr E. N. M. Hogben, while agreeing that no attempt should be made to conceal the names ot those schools which had accredited, said he was afraid that invidious comparisons might be made by the public. The latter might be led to the conclusion that some schools were efficient while others were not. The Hon. Mr Justice Smith was also doubtful as to the wisdom of the course proposed. Some schools, he believed, were too small for accrediting, and if a list were to be published the latter should be safeguarded so that there would be no reflection upon them. Mr W. J. Morrell recalled a case where the parent of a student told the principal of a school that he could not send his child there as the school was not accredited. There was always the difficulty, he warned, of misinterpretation. Mr Hogben: The Senate has already decided the reasons for the principles drawn up. Inform the Public

The Chancellor (the Hon. J. A. Hanan, M.L.C.): Why should it be kept a dark horse? Why should the public not know? This is a matter of great public importance. Mr Hogben: Well, that was the previous decision of the Senate. The best method for the Senate to adopt, declared Mr Morrell, would be to publish the principles upon which accrediting had been decided, but not the list of schools. • Mr F. A. de la Mare was in favour of publishing both the reasons and the list of schools. The reasons that had actuated the Senate, he believed, were sound, and if the full facts were given to the public the latter would be satisfied. » Mr A. H. Johnstone, K.C., was against publishing a list. This Hon. W. Downle Stewart said he was against the printing of a list; also there was a danger, in his opinion, of issuing any basis on which the principles had been arrived at. The proper course, he held, was to publish neither.

The public, Mr Cocker replied, had a right to know which schools had been placed on the list. Dr. G. E. Archey supported the publication of both the list and the reasons that had guided the Senate in accrediting certain schools. The list, said Sir Thomas Hunter, was merely a tentative one, and would be subject to revision every year. It was probable that a great number of schools would not wish to be accredited at all. The amendment was defeated and the report adopted. Mr Justice Smith then moved that the question of the publication of a list, together with a statement of general principles on which the initial list had been prepared, be referred back to the committee, with a direction that the latter should report to the Senate. That was carried.

At a later stage the Vice-Chancellor presented the report of the committee, which is reported at the head of this column.