THE PRESS WEDNESDAY, JUNE 15, 1983. Grading of teachers

Press, 15 June 1983, Page 12

THE PRESS WEDNESDAY, JUNE 15, 1983. Grading of teachers

The Minister of Education, Mr Wellington, proposes that a system of individual assessment and grading of all teachers be introduced. His suggestion will have surprised some people and confused others. Many people without a direct association with the teaching fraternity would have assumed that such a system was still being used; assessing the competence of teachers was generally understood to be the role of school inspectors. The former grading system was phased out during the early 19705. Since then, a procedure known as declassification has been the tool of quality control. Mr Wellington is not alone in his concern that this has proved inadequate. At present, length of service is a large determinant in deciding the priority of one teacher over another when it comes to redundancies. Mr Wellington says that falling school rolls mean that fewer teachers are needed, and that those who are employed should be the best available, not necessarily the longest-serving. Late last year, the principal of Auckland Grammar School, Mr D. J. Graham, caused a fluttering in the Auckland PostPrimary Teachers’ Association dovecot by making similar remarks. Mr Graham said that nearly all teachers made redundant by falling rolls and claiming priority rights were the weaker, less able ones. He condemned the priority rights scheme as a disaster and said that the oversupply of teachers should allow the incompetent to be removed. Not surprisingly, Mr Wellington’s suggestion has been applauded by the School Committees’ Federation and has the support of education boards. Just as predictably, the teachers’ organisations are opposed to the reintroduction of grading. The New Zealand Educational Institute, whose members are primary teachers, objects on the ground that a grading system will not put the right teacher with the right class, because the strengths shown by a teacher in a South Island rural school would not necessarily be the strengths required for a southern Auckland school. Perhaps not, but a grading system should be able to determine at the very least how competent a teacher is as an educator. Many elements in a teacher’s capabilities could be embraced in a grading system.

The national secretary of the Post-Primary Teachers’ Association, Mr G. Gillespie, has said that secondary teachers do not want to revert to the former grading system, but are prepared to look at proposals, particularly if they are seen to improve teachers’ performance. An editorial article in the association’s latest newsletter decries a grading system as treating teachers “like sheep and goats.” A grading system, the article says, does not get rid of poor teachers, but seeks merely to identify them. This is true. If, as the article implies, poor teachers continued to be employed under the old grading system, the shortage of teachers at that time was responsible, not the grading system.

A possible spur for the antipathy of some teachers to a grading system is revealed when the editorial article says that the abolition of grading was seen at the time as being a big step towards professional status for teachers. The question that teachers might ask themselves is, not what the lack of a grading system has done for their prestige, but what it has meant for the quality of education. Opposition to personal assessment and grading of teachers sits awkwardly beside the calls from teachers to abolish examinations and replace them with personal assessments of school pupils. If the merits of gauging a pupil’s potential by assessment are so strong, can measuring the actual ability of a teacher by the same means be any less satisfactory? Whatever mechanism is finally adopted, any attempt to ensure that the best available teachers are employed will benefit pupils, parents, and the community.

The surest way for teachers to raise their status, or professionalism, is by making certain themselves that the expensive service they provide is of the highest quality. The great majority of teachers should have nothing to fear from an assessment of their capabilities as teachers. An informal system of grading is probably working already when appointments are made. A fair grading system would probably mean that all but the least competent teachers will be more assured of getting the jobs that are going. This must be good news for both ends of the classrooms.