SCHOOL EXAMINATIONS.

Evening Star, Issue 10182, 8 December 1896, Page 1

SCHOOL EXAMINATIONS.

Tke Otago Education Board, at their meeting this week, will ,dcal with the motion of which notice has been given by Mr Ramsay : “ That the Board’s inspectors “ bo instructed not to re-examine Standards I. and II.”

Before discussing this question it will be as well to quote the departmental regulations bearing upon it. Regulation 6 reads ; “ Immediately before the examination held by the inspector, the head- “ teacher shall examine classes Standards “ I. and 11. respectively, and the pupils he “deems fit to pass shall, if they are “present in class during the inspector’s “ examination in class subjects, bo deemed “to have passed, and shall thereupon be “ marked as passed in the list given to the “ inspector.” In his examination report the inspector is instructed by Regulation 3 to report on “ the degree of discretion dis- “ played in the determining of the passes “in Standards 1. and II.” Inspectors have to work by the above regulations, and whether Standards I. and 11. are or arc not re-examined will depend on the interpretation by the inspectors of these regulations. Wo do not think that the Education Department, in issuing the regulations quoted above, intended that Standards I. and 11. should bo examined twice in pass subjects; otherwise, provision would not have been made for the passing of the pupils of these standards who are present in class during the inspector’s examination in class subjects only. That the pupils of these two standards have to undergo two examinations is beyond question. The Board’s inspectors, in their report for last year, say : “ Though we do not award the “ passes in these classes, our examination “of them is as searching as ever it was.” The object of the inspector’s examination of these standard classes is to enable him to report, on “ the degree of discretion dis- “ played (by the head-teacher) in the deter- “ mining of the passes in Standards I. and “II.” If there is no other way of ascertaining whether or not the teacher has displayed a proper degree of discretion in the promotion of pupils in these standards than by a second searching examination, then we think the examination by the teacher “ immediately before the examination held by the inspector” is a farce, and should bo put a stop to at once. The majority of teachers do not, wc believe, look upon the privilege (sir) as a boon, and they ■would much prefer that the whole responsibility of examining these standards should rest with the inspectors. Whether the inspector passed the pupils or not, the teacher would still have the right, if he thought fit, to promote them. At any rate, if the pupils in these standards have to hero-examined, wo consider the experiment of allowing the headteacher to examine a failure.

We shall give the opinions of some of the inspectors of other educations.! districts. Mr Morton, of Westland, says : “ With the exception of those in charge of “ schools with a roll-number of more than “ 120, the head-masters at the exarnina- “ tions of the year preferred to leave the “promotion of the pupils in the .First and “ Second Standards to the inspector, and “ the passes recorded in the larger schools “coincided with sufficient exactness with “ the results of my examination. It would “ appear that the privilege of classification “of the lower standards is regarded as “ of doubtful benefit by the teachers “of the smaller schools, where parental “ influence is likely to ho exerted with elfect “ to secure premature promotion.’ 1 Now, since in Westland there are only three schools with an attendance of over 120 pupils, these regulations may there be said to he ignored. Here we might [joint out that out of 214 schools (see hast report) in Otago only thirty have an attendance of over 150 pupils. Mr Petrie (Auckland) says : “ The examination for the standard “pass in Standards I. and 11. has now “ been in the hands of head-teachers for “two years. In my judgment, and “ in that of my colleagues, - this “ arrangement has not conduced to “ a high standard of efficiency in these “classes.” Mr Spencer, of Taranaki, condemns the system, and, in doing so, gives instances of teachers abusing the so-called privilege. The Wanganui and Wellington inspectors are silent on this matter. Mr Hill (Hawke’s Bay) writes : “ Standards I. and 11. were examined in “pass subjects by the principal teacher. “ On examination day I usually test some “ of the pass work in my own way, but in “ every instance the results submitted by “ the teachers have been accepted without “ demur, after forming my judgment upon “the efficiency of a standard, from an inspection of copy books and drawing “ books, followed by an oral exami- “ nation of the children in class and “additional subjects. Nor have I “ any reason to think that the large “ majority of teachers accept other than a “ fair standard of attainments from those “ whom they examine under the rcgula- “ tions, and yet I doubt the wisdom of “ the course that is being adopted.” The inspectors for Nelson point out the evil results of the system. In Grey, with one or two exceptions in very small schools, Mr Fetch is satisfied with the discretion displayed by teachers. Inspectors Wood, Anderson, and Ritchie (North Canterbury), in their report for last year, do not express any opinion on the system. Mr Gow (South Canterbury) re-examines Standards I. and 11., except in the largo schools, and he cannot be said to approve of the system. Inspectors ll exdry and Braik (Southland) "fear that in some instances the better judgment of teachers has to give way to more or less pressure on the part of parents. The Otago inspectors think that in some schools children wore passed whom they would not have passed, but admit that, on the whole, Standards I. and 11. arc kept up to a good general level of attainment. Their examination of these classes is, however, as searching as ever it was. From an inspector’s point of view, then, the system of allowing hoad-toaohers to examine Standards I. and 11. may he said to be a failure, and if, in order to carry out Regulation 3, inspectors insist on reexamining these standards, the system may be said to he a failure from the point of view of tlffi teacher, say nothing of the poor pupil. We have always considered that in our schools there is too much examination, and now it seems that the system we have been discussing, instead of lessening the evil, has intensified it. So long as individual examination and passing in standards continue it will he impossible to got more inspection and less examination, which is what we should much like to see. If, in order to carry out departmental Regulation No. 3, the Board’s inspectors find it necessary to re-examine Standards I. and 11., then it would be well for the Board, in the

interest of the children in these classes, to revert to the old practice of leaving the examinations entirely in the. hands of their inspectors.