Teachers Oppose U.E. Change

Press, Volume CII, Issue 30129, 13 May 1963, Page 10

Teachers Oppose U.E. Change

(New Zealand Press Association) AUCKLAND, May 12. Auckland post-primary teachers today at their regional conference opposed proposals of the University Entrance Board for changing the University Entrance examination.

Under the proposed system, all candidates would sit a special national examination about October and be assessed for accrediting later in the year. In the absence of any convincing reasons for doing away with the present system. the conference decided to ask the Post-primary Teachers’ Association’s executive to press for the maintenance of the status quo in the meantime. The conference also decided that if, in spite of its opposition, the Entrance Board introduced an examination for all candidates, the examination should be held as near as possible to the end of the year. Presented Cue Earlier, the chairman of the Entrance Board (Dr. F. J. Llewellyn) had presented the case for the changes. He said it was the board’s intention that by placing the examination earlier in the year, say October, it would not be a goal to be readied at the end of a syllabus, but would be jtfct an incident on which accrediting could be based. “To my mind,’’ Dr. Llewellyn said, “the real paradox of the present situation is that while we argue that the fairest method of assessing a candidate's ability is by the process of accrediting, we are prepared to leave the Anal decision —including that on border-line candidates — to the examination.” To support the continua-

tion of the present process of accreditation would be to accept the view that for borderline candidates, examinations are a fairer measure than the opinion of schools and principals on the pupil’s work out of crisis examination conditions. “This is nonsense,” said Dr. Llewellyn. A two or three-hour paper was not enough, and could not be regarded as a “fair, final judge.” The system of scaling marks was also criticised by Dr. Llewellyn. In 1961, results showed that had the medium mark for scaling been increased by only one point in four major subjects, 260 more candidates would have passed. “The examination is like a sharp knife cutting candidates into two groups—those who pass and those who fail —but the knife is held in a very shaky hand,” he said.