DE-GRADING OF TEACHERS.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 21020, 8 May 1930, Page 13

DE-GRADING OF TEACHERS.

ITS EFFECT IN OTAGO. A LACK OF UNIFORMITY. The Committee of Management of the Otago branch of the New Zealand Educational institute has supplied the following statement of the position in respect to the grading of teachers:— During the past four years there has been much concern among Otago teachers on the subject of de-grading or loss of marks on the annual grading list—particularly as it was found that the chief victims of de-grading were teachers grown old in the service and on the point of retirement. The effect ou these teachers has been to . send them out under a crushing weight of depression and humiliation -—the culmination and reward of their life s work. The latest issue of the grading list shows in Otago a greater number than ever of cases, of de-grading. So stirred have the teachers bceu over this that at both sessions of the recent annual meeting of the Otago Education Institute it formed the main subject of discussion. A committee was set up to investigate thoroughly tlie amount of Je-grading during the past four years throughout all the educational districts of New Zealand, the result being the subjoined very informative and arresting comparative table. This needs little explanation; but an enumeration of a few of the facts and comparisons to be gained by a study of it gives food for serious thought:— (1) Taking an average of the fouryears 1927-30, column 1 shows that the Otago teachers number 741 out of a total of 0422 in New Zealand, approximately 1 in D. Column 3 shows the number of cases of de-grading in Otago for the four years to be 34 out of a total of 148 for the Dominion, approximately 1 in 4. In short, Otago teachers number 1 in 9 of the total number in the Dominion; the cases of de-grading number 1 in 4! An arresting comparison! (2) Column 5 (aggregate marks lost) shows that the 741 teachers in- Otago lost 482 marks, while the remaining 5681 teachers in all the other provinces put together lost 401 —another arresting comparison! (3) Column 6 (average marks Tost) shows the average loss in the 34 cases of de-grading in Otago to be 14 marks, while in the remaining 114 cases of degrading in the rest of New Zealand, the average marks lost were 3.5. ' In_ Wanganui the only cases of degrading throughout the four years average 7 marks each. ’ In addition to these facts which may be gained by a study of the table, one Otago case may be cited to indicate the monetary aspect of de-grading. This teacher suffered a loss of £lO in salary and a proportionate loss of superannuation allowance for the rest of his life. Another significant fact not shown in the table is illuminating. When the 1927 grading list appeared, it was found that 12 Otago teachers, had been deprived of marks awarded them 'in previous years, and_ they were, subsequently informed that their former grading had been too high, t

Yet three of the inspectors who graded Otago teachers in 1927 had graded the same teachers in 19262 The Otago easq cited in the previous paragraph was one of these.- _ p . It has been stated that de-grading is £, necessary corollary of any system of mark* | ing which aims at placing in their correct 1 relative positions teachers doing the same class of work. Let this be for the mo« ment accepted. The table shows clearly that the practice of de-grading is not being resorted- to uniformly in all parts of New Zealand. Such a discrepancy from district to district tends to undermine the confidence of teachers in a scheme which was instituted primarily to secure uniformity of appraisement throughout the Dominion. It is not denied that there are occasional “ slackers ” in the teaching profession as elsewhere! and there is no wish to defend such. Quite the contrary! But it is contended that taking away from a teacher marks once gained by him ehould never be done except in cases of serious dereliction of duty, proved loss of efficiency or some serious offence. If the weak teacher is kept marking time while, hie more efficient fellow is- steadily climbing upwards, the former will soon. find himself in his correct relative position. But a very disturbing feature of this determination — apparently so strong m the minds of Otago inspectors—of placing teachers in their correct relative positions on the grading list is that it is not necessarily only the lazy or inefficient teacher who suffers. Teachers who, according to their reports, have given faithful service and done a conscientious; year’s work have been rewarded with “minus” marks; and no argument about correct relative positions, however logical and unanswerable, can remove the sting or lift the dead weight of depression and sense of injustice from their minds. Let there be again accepted for -the moment the absurd assumption underlying the whole practice of grading that each year's work of a teacher is a separate entity without relation to or cohesion with all the work of the years that went before it, It might be pertinent to ask what man or body of men can, in the course of a brief visit to a school, so accurately assess a teacher’s work and worth and personality in comparison with those of his fellows as to feel justified in subjecting any teacher—other than the obviously weak, lazy, or negligent—to the humiliation of de-grading. Particularly is this so in these days when the thoroughgoing examination of every pupil’s progress as conducted by inspectors 20 or more years ago is regarded as a practice of the dark ages, and since “ freedom ” has become the slogan of -both teacher and pupil. So unsettling has this fear of being degraded become that teachers are in danger of losing their self-respect and virility. The conclusion is being forced upon teachers and the thinking public, that any system of grading that can be so interpreted and applied as to produce annually among teachers—as has been produced in Otago during the last four years—such an amount of heartache, resentment, and hopelessness as de-grading produces, is a wrong thing—not only to the teacher who suffers it —but, what is more important, to the children under him who cannot but be reacted upon by their teacher’s loss of self-respect, buoyancy, and confidence in the justice of th* system of appraisement and appointment under which he works.