Primary schools ‘never away from basics’

Press, 5 July 1978, Page 20

Primary schools ‘never away from basics’

By MR E. CAMERON, president of the North Canterbury Primary School Principals’ Association.

The “back-to-basics” cry has been raised, just as it has been raised before with greater strength every few years. The “basics” may mean different things to different people, but generally the critics have in mind the “three Rs.” These criticisms of present-day standards, as compared with standards of the past, are not a new phenomenon. They go back to the beginning of the century. One recent criticism from a well-known politician could have come straight from an editorial in “The Press” on May 22, 1916. which expressed deep concern “. . . about the inability of primary children going on to secdonary school to read, write, and calculate.” It deplored a situation in which teachers had turned away from teaching the basic requirements and skills, including reading. grammar, and arithmetic, and had allowed the curriculum to be clutte r ed by the “frills of education.” i . Surveys that have been carried out at any time in response to concern or criticism have shown that standards have been maintained or have improved. Before the “Education Re-

view” called for by the Minister of Education at the end of last year, the most recent comprehensive survey was carried out in 1958. This was in response to criticisms such as those being voiced at the present time. Twelve year olds throughout the country were given standardised tests to compare with the results of 12 year olds in 1952, 1948, 1934, 1931, and 1927. These results were also compared with overseas standards. This survey showed that standards had been maintained that reading was higher than ever before, and that “the gains of a liberalised curriculum had been secured without general losses in the basic skills.” Then the “Currie Commission," an indepent body set up by the Government, published a report in 1962. This commission’s report said that underlying primary teaching method there is a body of educational theory, firmly based and consistent; and that it had little sympathy for those who advocated an atmosphere of unquestioning obedience, who wished to narrow all achievement to

success in the three Rs, or who found themselves unable to accept the cardinal ideas of variation in ability and attainment, and would withhold a child from progress through the system until he had reached, each year, some fixed level or standard of attainment.

Most criticism over recent years has been concerned with the standards of reading with cries of “Why can’t our children read?” or “Why can’t they read as well as past generations?” The accompanying calls have been for a return to methods of the past. This criticism has been answered so many times and so conclusively that there is no justification for its continuance. The standard of reading is higher than ever before, and the highest in the world as illustrated by the 1973 survey by the international Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement. The Education Review conducted at the end of 1977. and reported by Mr Gander recently, showed once more that standards are being maintained. I would like to stress that the primary schools have never “got away from the basics.” To meet the needs of a changing world the curriculum has broadened over the last 30 years; there have been changes

of aims, and methods, and philosophy. Yet, in spite of the great demands upon teachers, the teaching of “the basics” remains of prior importance in every school, and a large proportion of the time is spent on these. Whatever else may be neglected at any time, these are not, and teachers still have as a main aim to not only maintain but to endeavour to improve the standards in the basics. For schools to meet the demands of an expanding curriculum, and to handle the increasing problems produced by present-day society, while still maintaining standards, is a fine achievement. Overseas educationists who visit New Zealand are impressed with the curriculum and methods of the primary schools and make such comments as that of Professor Purves (of Illinois University) on “. . . the really excellent teaching of reading at the primary level”; or of Dr Wolf (Professor of Psychology and Education at Columbia University) who “. .. . finds our technical institutes and primary schols especially praiseworthy.” There always have been, and always will be, some children who have learning difficulties, because of lack of innate ability, physical and mental defects. or lack of develop-

mental experience during the early years. In addition there are those with problems produced by society, such as the “transient” children who have frequent changes of school; the poor attenders, who are often encouraged by a lonely parent, or whose parents don’t know, or don’t care, whether they are at school; or the increasing number who because of the break-up of families are suffering socially and emotionally and are not “disposed” towards learning. Some of them have severe emotional and behavioural problems. Unfortunately some critics make judgments on the basis of some failures they know of, children of low ability or those with special problems, rather than making themselves aware of the well-proven standard throughout the country. Parents should take advantage of opportunities that are given to observe the quality of work in the schools. There are, of course, always areas of concern in any educational system and .one that has shown up over recent years and has been confirmed by the Education Review is the growing gap between the able and less able pupils. This may reflect the growing gap in New Zealand between the “haves” and the “have nots”; it undoubtedly reflects the

great increase in social problems creating a situation in which the children are so often the losers. It would be difficult for those not in contact with the situation to understand the numbers of children suffering physical, social, and emotional deprivation and neglect. For many of these the school is the only stabilising influence and the teacher is the only favourable model. The community as a whole must look at the problems and needs of this section of our society. Schols must endeavour even more to help overcome their problems and must be given the necessary support and resources to do so. As a Principals’ Association we welcome the interest of individuals, organisations, and politicians in education. It is important that any concern should be expressed; but it is also important that criticism should be valid and objective. If we are to continue educational progress, what is required is serious educational debate rather than heated quarrelling or political opportunism. The continual knocking of schools does not help the morale of teachers who are doing a difficult job in difficult times. Let us be concerned. constructive, co-operative, and steady progress will be made.