"THE CRIME OF EFFICIENCY."

Otago Daily Times, Issue 18048, 23 September 1920, Page 9

"THE CRIME OF EFFICIENCY."

TO THE EDITOR. S 18,--Tho statements recently made by Mr Steele at tlio meeting of the Schools' Committees' Association will no doubt be reviewed by iho Headmasters' Association at its next mooting, I shall, therefore, confine my remarks to the tables presented by Mr Steele. Mr Steele says that in the North-Eaet Valley School, with 718 pupils on the roll (thi9 was really 707 when the promotions to Standard VI were made), Standard VI ia represented by 34 'selected scholars, the pick of Standard V. ' There can bo only one inference from, this-—i.e., that when I exaininod Standard V in December, 1918, I selected the 34 beet, and sent them on to Standard VI for the year 1919. This "startling effect," says Mt Steele, is the result of retardation in Standard V. Now for tho real facts, which I shall bo pleased to show Mr Steele if ho cares to 6oe th&in. In December, 1918, there were 50 pupils in Standard V. Out of that number 45, not 31, wore placed in Standard VI at the beginning of 1919. That is 90 per cent, of the roll of Standard V. Can you call 90 per cent, of promotions undue retardation? Of these 45, 14 left the school, their parents having removed from tho district. Two who were put up on trial were put back into Standard V after four months. Four pupils entered 'from other schools, and one who obtained a Standard VI competency certificate in 1918 remained at school in order to obtain his proficiency certificate. Thus the roll of 34 at the end of the year is accounted for. Had it not been for the four new entrants the number credited to my school would have been 30, or only two-thirds of the number actually promoted. Moreover, of the five who were not promoted, two girls who had been in indifferent health were kept back by their parents' reguest. I leave you, Sir, to judge whether, in view of all these foots, the smallness of the number in Standard Vl was due to anything which it was in my power to avoid. In December, 1917, when the roll number was 693, 57 were promoted to Standard VI. none were put back, and yet at tho end of 1918, owing to removals from the district, we are credited with only 49 in Standard VI. In his second table, Mr Steele has given figures for the year 1919 only. As Mr "Wallace properly pointed out, it is not safe to base statistics on one year's results. It has been my custom in filling in examination schedules to enter the child's "new classification" as that of the class he wa© already in, if, in my opinion, the results of his year's work did not reach the standard required for promotion. That, however, has not from giving many of these children a trial in the next class, provided they have promised to attend more punctually and regularly and to strive to do better work in the future. It is only just that this should be stated, because the one who compiled the tables may have regarded all failures as not having any chance of promotion. In the following table I am giving the percentages of those who, perhaps in spite of failure to reaoh the required standard, were actually moved up into the next class, and in doing so I have accepted Mr Steele's figures for 1919 as correct. Percentages are given, to the nearest whole number: — MBS £ > £ t 13 u. m E ® ra a* a a a g a a 2 3333 3 3 S CO CO CO tn OJ 02 i 1917 „83 94 91 81 83 100f 89 1918 91 100 100 85 90 96t 94 1919 ... *92 86 82 78 71 IOOf. 85 Average 89 93 91 81 81 99 » Not given by Mr Steele, t Include competency certificates. In 1918 the final examination was not held, - but no fair-minded man can say that, in spite of the short and broken year, the ohildren did not receive a "square deal," seeing that 402 out of 431 of the children from Standard I to Standard 6 were promoted. Owing to the promotion of many weak pupils in 1918, the broken attendance in 1919, and the abnormal numbeT of children who left and entered during the year, the promotions i :n 1919 were seriously affected. Tho following table gives food for thought: — 1920 to 1918. 1919. date. Pupi s left 171 371 166 Pupils entered 181 282 155 Sinoe writing the above I have Been Mr Steele 9 tables of average percentage of promotions in Standards II to Y for the last lowing is a comparison of Mr Steele s figures and my own as compiled from a previous table:— 1917. 1918. 1919. Published table ... ... 85.8 79.7 79.5 Per cent, actually promoted... 87.2 93.75 79.2 In conclusion, Sir, I do not wish to imply that the tables already published are not correct; they are based on different data. Mr Steele s tables have been compiled from recorded failures, and mine from actual promotions in spite of failure. The discrepancy between tho tables indicates the percentage that has received an extra "square deal." Iu stems to me that the whole question of retardation turns on this one very debatable point-—at what stage in a child's school life should unavoidable retardation be carried out with least injury to the child? I'hold that it should be in Standards IV or V and! not in Standard VI, and with your kind permission 1 may return to this subject at a later date —I am, etc., OSCAR D. Flamank, Head Master, North-Eaet Valley.