SCHOOL COMMITTEES OPPOSE DEMAND FOR REPORTS

Press, Volume CI, Issue 29872, 12 July 1962, Page 13

SCHOOL COMMITTEES OPPOSE DEMAND FOR REPORTS

Secondary school boards will be asked by the Canterbury School Committees’ Association to stop asking for Form I reports with a child’s application for enrolment at a high school, and merely require a certificate proving that the child has applied for admission to that school only. A move at the association’s monthly meeting last evening to “reaffirm opposition” to the demand for school reports with applications for secondary school enrolment ended with the above decision —but after a half-hour debate which at one stage threatened to become somewhat bitter. The suggestion to reaffirm opposition was made by Mr J. R. McClintock (Woolston). All secondary schools would get the child's Form II report in due course, he said, but the association should object to the demand for the Form I report. Mr E. F. Wilde (North New Brighton) said that all secondary schools, except two which were “a closed shop,” were catering for the areas surrounding them. “The association cannot ask those schools not, to ask for a report.” he said. Mrs M Rae (East Christchurch) said that delegates to the association were there as representatives of the parents—and the parents naturally felt anxiety at the demand for reports if their primary school did not issue one. “Parents are concerned about this matter, and we must do what the parents want,” said Mrs Rae.

Was it the association’s policy to oppose the issue of primary-school reports, or merely their requirement with applications for secondary school enrolment? asked a member. The chairman (Mrs G. E. Boyd): I don’t know what the policy Is. I wonder if the association is exceeding its duty in prying into what the secondary school boards are doing. Mr R. K. Milne XWharenui) said he considered the requirement of the report with the application for enrolment was the point at issue. Mrs M. G. Metcalf (Waltham) said that primary school reports were private communications to parents. They were not written “with an outsider in view.” “We are being asked to condone an outside ■ party receiving a private report," Mrs Metcalf said. “I think it is quite preposterous. Secondary school boards are exceeding their rights. It is quite wrong. I am not at all sure they are making a rightful use of the report when they receive them. They are using the reports to select what they consider the cream of pupils.” Mr J. Palmer (Burwood) said that the secondary school boards had adopted the scheme of reports to gel', order out of chaos. Children had been travelling the width of Christchurch to go to certain schools, when they should have been going to schools nearer their homes. It was a pity the scheme had

broken down through two schools “not toeing the line.” Thirteen of the 15 secondary schools were in the scheme. Mr Wilde: I wonder what the reaction will be if zoning comes in. Then what a hue and cry there will be. Mrs Metcalf then moved “that the association ask secondary school boards to cease asking for Form I repots, and instead ask for a certificate proving that a child has applied for enrolment at only one secondary school.” Mrs Rae seconded. Mr Wilde: In other words, we are saying to the boards how to run their own business? Mrs Metcalf: We are asking them not to impose on us. In supporting the motion, Mr W. Rosenberg (Cashmere) said he did not see why headmasters should be forced to issue reports because the secondary school boards wanted it so. Mr J. S. Whiten (Fendalton) said that Form I reports could not be a very good standard for the secondary schools to judge pupils by—especially when the reports were 18 months old when read. Further discussion was cut short by a motion “that the motion be put,” but Mrs Rae claimed the right to speak as seconder, during which she said that the issuing of the reporta and their use by the secondary school boards had nothing to do with educational standards

The motion was then put, and declared carried on the voice*.