THE BIG SQUEEZE

Press, Volume CIII, Issue 30405, 2 April 1964, Page 11

THE BIG SQUEEZE

[Specially written for "The Press" by PRACTITIONER]

Readers will be familiar with the term “credit squeeze,” but what our primary schools are now being subjected to is a “discredit squeeze.” From every point of the educational compass comes a mounting pressure of suggestions, criticisms and straight-out complaints. Post-primary teachers disparage the standard of attainment of each new set of entrants with increasing force; many children, they say, cannot read their textbooks let alone understand them. The Commission on Education and others suggest that extra mathematics, foreign languages and more basic science be all fitted into the already crammed-full primary curriculum.

The general public not. only complains that many normal children can’t read but also says harsh things about their arithmetic and spelling work. The Canterbury Mathematical Association states that: “Primary teachers are not adequately trained either for the teaching of mathematics at forms I and H or for the teaching of arithmetic to provide adequate preparation for mathematics at that level.” A group of physical education enthusiasts calls for more attention to be given to physical education, while the primary school music experts ask for more music to be done.

Sundry bodies have pushed teachers into making age-pro-motion an almost invariable rule, and, aiding those who believe in free discipline, an anti-corporal-punishment league is pressing for the adoption of its policies.

And so it goes on, deeper and deeper into the realms of utter absurdity. Possible Solutions Many teachers are giving anxious consideration to this

problem and believe that urgent action must be taken to rescue these schools and their occupants from the present impasse. Among suggestions that have been put forward are these:—

(1) The immediate provision of more teaching material. Nothing is further from possibility that the efficient teaching of multilevel classes by the use of single-level equipment. (2) The use of the five school hours for the concentrated teaching of academic subjects only, while cultural and physical activities are taught after these hours by teachers who are paid for this extra work. This system works well in some advanced overseas countries. Why not adopt it here? (3) An immediate modification of the (un)hallowed agepromotion rules. (4) An increase in the length of the school day by at least an hour. If combined with a firm, well-organ-ised resistance to all further demands on school time, this would provide 200 hours, the equivalent of eight more, of our present school weeks. This would enable the primary schools to send on a better-prepared product, would cause neither teachers nor pupils undue strain, and would benefit the whole education service.

(5) The adoption of a much stronger and more realistic attitude towards improving the present postion of the primary service by both teachers and parents. These latter were, last year, advised by a Wellington speaker to get out on to the streets and demand a better education for their children. In the opinion of many, unless parents do this soon, it will be too late; the children will have sustained irreparable educational damage.