The ‘problem third’

Press, Volume CXV, Issue 33933, 28 August 1975, Page 2

The ‘problem third’

(t rom Our Own Reporter) WELLINGTON, August 27. State secondary-school representatives todayaccepted that they have an urgent social responsibility towards more than a quarter of their pupils, who are failing to reach their full potential. The problem of limited educational attainers was clearly identified in a paper presented to the annual conference of the Post-Primary Teachers’ Association by its South Auckland region. What was referred to as the “problem third” of the school were “under-attain-ing” in personal development and scholastic progress and included the emotionally disturbed. the behaviour problems. the over-inhibited, and

| those performing markedly • below their own potential. Unless urgent action on the problem was taken by the school, the Department of Education, and (most important) the home, “devastating social consequences” would occur for many thousands of New Zealand teen-agers. Schools could not work in I isolation from parents. Greater emphasis must be put on building close links with the homes of children : who were failing to reach their full potential. If the home failed to detect the problems which faced a child, then it was I considered vital to the ini dividual and society that schools “picked up the danger signals.” One South Auckland delegate suggested that if parents refused to assist, the system accepted in some countries overseas of stopping the pav- , ment of child benefits should be applied. Delegates were, however, generally reluctant to make strong criticisms of narenta! ineptitude, although this was implicit in many comments. The problem of the home which failed to co-operate, once the school bad identified punils with limited educational achievement. remained unsolved. Schools must he provided with adequate skilled staff, the paper said, as there was ! Inow a growing realisation.

■ I that the proper handling of limited educational attainers required skill. patience, understanding, and experijence; and in many schools the most able teachers were working with such young people. Their role was seen as preventive, as failure for many iof the children concerned meant a “drop out,” not only from school but often from isociety. Delegates accepted the fact I that more assistance must be provided for schools from such outside services as guid- i ance counsellors, visiting ; teachers, and welfare officers: < and there was criticism that 1 communication within individual schools between teaching, administrative, and guid- ; ance staff was often defective, usually because there was inadequate time to devote to nroblems. Too often, communication failed to be preventive. oc- f curing after, rather than before. a crisis.