GRADING OF TEACHERS

New Zealand Herald, Volume LIII, Issue 16215, 28 April 1916, Page 7

GRADING OF TEACHERS

THE NATIONAL SYSTEM.

SOME OF ITS DETAILS.

NOT A PROMOTION SCHEME.

An outline of the Education Department's scheme for the grading of school teachers on a national scale was given to the executive of tile New Zealand Educational Institute at its annual gathering ill Wellington last week- by Mr. laughlev, assistant-director of education. No particulars were made public at the time, but tho scheme was. explained in some detail by Mr. 0. R. Munro, 0110 of the Auckland representatives on the executive, at. yesterday's meeting of the local branch of the institute.

Mr. Munro said that the teachers of the Dominion were divided into six groups, according to salary and position. In the groups teachers were aligned marks in proportion to proficiency in the positions they held, the teachers in each group being graded with the other teachers 111 the same group. Tho maximum murks allotted were : For skill in teaching, 40, personality and discipline, 15; organisation and management, 15; environment, 5; academic attainments. 15: service, 10. The marks tor skill in teaching were: — Very good and excellent, 35 to 40; good, 30 to 34; very far, 25 to 29; fair, 20 to 24; weak, 16 to 19; and very weak, 10 to 14. The marks under the heading of environment were given according to taste displayed in the arrangement of the school and " the factor the teacher proves to be in the social life of tho community." Mr. Munro explained other details of tho aheme, and added that in compiling tho grading lists a number would be placed against each teacher's name determining his .her order of merit. The completed list would ta issued about tho end if June, and appeals would require to be lodged before the end of July.

Mr. H. E. Cousins, in supplying somo further details, said tho members of the executive had been impressed with the evidence that Mr. Caughley had done his utmost in the interests of the teaching profession in preparing his scheme. It must bo understood, however, that it was a grading scheme pure and simple, and made no claim to be also a promotion scheme, as was tne Auckland Education Board's scheme. The best test of the Department's plan of grading would be its operati m. Mr. Caughley had invited criticism, and teachers well'knew that no man would listen to criticism more svmpa-j thetically. Further, he stated that he could see no reason why the new proposal should interfere with the Auckland Board's promotion system—that there was 1 no such idea in the mind of tie Department. Mr. Cousin's advice to the. Auckland teachers was that they mould' endeavour to persuade (heir boa.-d to continue to work its own system alongside the Department's scheme, and should I use tho time that remained before the' Department's scheme would come into I operation in criticising that scheme as effectively and scientifically as possible with a view to suggesting directions in which it should be amended, and by which it. could eventually become a promotion scheme. ' I

Further discussion upon the scheme was postponed, t;ie time appointed for Mr. Mulgan's address having arrived.