THE GRADING OF TEACHERS.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 21022, 10 May 1930, Page 17

THE GRADING OF TEACHERS.

TO THE .EDITOR. Sir, —I have been instructed to forward some comments on and corrections of some of the statements contained in the leading article in your issue of the 3rd instant on the grading of teachers. It would take too much of your space to deal adequately with all the points that call for comment, but what has to be said, will be cut down to the barest possible limits. With regard to the statement that the system was introduced in 1916 “ almost entirely at the instigation of the New Zealand Educational Institute,” it should be pointed out that the Dominion system was established at the repeated request of the teachers of New Zealand, as represented by the institute. In five education districts local grading systems had been in operation fox; several years—in Auckland since 1909—and it was the experience of those districts that convinced the teachers generally of the possibility and desirability of a Dominion scheme. When the scheme was explained to the annual meeting of 1916 the approval accorded to it was so general that the motion for its adoption was carried without a division. It is an error to suppose that the control of the inspectorate was taken over by the department in order that the grading might be done in a uniform manner. The taking over was provided for, on quite other grounds, in “ The Education Act, 1914,” while the grading system was not established till 1916. It was five years, not eight, after the establishment of the system that the list was made the basis of appointments. All that need be said on the present occasion is contained in the following quotation from the report of the Executive 'of the institute for 1920:—“The change in the law regarding appointments may justly be accepted as an occasion for general satisfaction among teachers. “ The question of adopting the graded list as a Dominion basis of appointments was twice referred to individual teachers, and on dach occasion the response was an ovenwhelming confirmation of the institute’s many-years-old demand for a Dominion scheme of appointments. The long-de-sired measure is at last on the Statute Book, and one of the most objectionable features of the education service, and one of the worst hindrances to educational progress, will soon be a thing of the past.” When some post-war additions to salaries were being made, part of- the in-

crease was given in the form of "grading addition.” Tho teachers, through the institute, bad long been asking for payment' of salaries on the basis of efficiency instead of on the basis of average attendance. The innovation of the “ grading increment ” wan welcomed as a definite, though only partial acknowledgement of that principle. It had, and still has, no resemblance at all to " payment by results —which practice, indeed, has, never been in operation in New Zealand—at least in any overt or direct way. It is idle to say that the grading system was “ forced upon teachers by a few ruling heads of the New Zealand Educational • Institute.” The institute has a thoroughly democratic constitution, and it is impossible that any decision can remain upon its records that the general mind of the service disapproves. As evidence that the grading system has the • support of the general body of teachers, take this resolution, adopted unanimously at the annual meeting of 1029 —‘‘ Tfcftt the executive be called upon to resist any attempt to weaken the. authority of the graded list as the basis of promotion.” No less than six branches of the Institute have noted the reaffirmation of that resolution as among the important business of the coming annual meeting. The very wild assertion that the grading system has engendered jealousy and a large family of equally objectionable offspring carries its own refutation, and should pass unnoticed were; it not that it presents a totally unworthy picture of the great majority of the service. The feelings named exist, it is true, in the breasts of a few of the teachers, but in no more of them than in the old days used to sneer at and begrudge the promotion of their fellows from 5 to 4, 4 to 3, and so on. The vast majority of the teachers are concerned with their work, and hardly’ at all with their grading. Many of them even forget what their grading mark is.’ • The passage relating to women teachers is bard to understand. The grading system takes no account of sex, and if it has allowed women to secure new positions that can only be on the ground of efficiency, and that is what the teaching body as a whole has stood for from the beginning. ( . It is said that the grading system diminished the powers of boards and committees. Quite true. . This is mainly what it was desired for and designed for. It put an end to the injustice and corruption that used to attend the making of appointments; it secured that, with some excepions, the most efficient applicant for a position should be appointed, and that the schools should obtain the services of "the best teacher available. More than that, it broke down the barrier between district and district, and for the first time made a Dominion service possible. _ It would not be proper to make particular reference to the cases of downgrading that are now being investigated, but it is necessary to say ■ that downgrading is an inherent part of the system, and has been regarded and has operated as such from'the beginning. It haS been said that it' is impossible to grade teachers. What are the facta?' .Omitting reference to the old system of classes and divisions, for 20 yearn teachers have been graded in most of the districts of the North Island, and for 16 years in the whole of the Dominion. Last £ear, of 6220 teachers graded, only 148 showed dissatisfaction by appealing, and of these 61 s withdrew their appeals,—-dear indication that as a whole the service is well satisfied with its grading system. If anyone doubts that, let the question be tested by a definite proposal to abolish the eyetem. The reply will- be quite' convincing; —I am, etc., H. A. Parkxksoh, , "Secretary, N.Z.8.1. Wellington, May 8, 1930. [£t was mad* perfectly clear in our article that several of the statements traversed in the above letter were a recapitulation of what has been said by objectors to .the grading system.— Ed., O.D.T.]