THE EXAMINATION SYSTEM. (Continued.)

Otago Witness, Issue 2370, 3 August 1899, Page 62

THE EXAMINATION SYSTEM. (Continued.)

" Probably the strongest argument for the annual individual examination of the children in our primary schools is the necessity for some test of the teacher's work. Parliament votes annually a large sum of money to be spent in providing means of education for the coming citizens, and it would fail in its duty did it not make provision to see that it got value for its money. Teachers themselves admit the necessity of this, but they do not admit that the individual pass, system' is the best method that can be devised for the purpose. The system is founded upon several fallacies. In the first place, it sets a certain amount of work to be done in a year, and practically assiimes that every boy and girl not absolutely stupid can get through this work year by year. This assumption carrieß with it as a necessary corollary tlie assumption that a teacher who fails to pass almost all his pupils has failed to do a good year's work, and the -further corollary that the pupils who fail are woefully stupid. "Wero the working capacity of children thoroughly known, so that a syllabus could be made to fit exactly this capacity, no doubt there would be little harm in the pass system ; but children's minds are as various a& the children themselves, ar.d the syllabus does not represent the minimum of work that every child could reasonably be expected to get through. At the present time tho syllabus is overweighted with too many subjects, and the work demanded in mai\v subjects is utterly unreasonable. Yet some want to add to the syllabus ! One often hear : the remark, " Oh, an average boy or yirl ought to be able to do tkat." Unfortunately for teachers, the " average boy or girl " is a statistical abstraction. No matter how nmuy clever boys or girls there may be in a cla3S, those below the average require special work. The teaching that avails for the former avails only in part, sometimes not at all, for tho latter, and vice versa. ' Therefore, in a class of widely varying capacity it is quite evident that a part of the teacher's work is bound to be wasted either upon pupils that cannot benefit by the instruction given to the others or in keeping clever pupils marking time while tho backward are being taught. Tho pass system condemns teachers to work under this disadvantage, and injustice is done both to the clever and to the dull. Children that have by nature somewhat lees brain power than their companions must sometimes find school-life rather hard. Failure to pass an examination is apt to be taken as prima facie evidence of stupidity, and stupidity, alas, is a reproach. The worst sufferers under the pass system nre undoubtedly those that are by some called stupid. They are worried and pushed and dragged on till they are either shoved through or given up as hopeless. But do we not owe as much to the backward as to the clever? Is not the aim of education to enable every man ' to make the most of himself intellectually, physically, and morally?' How often, too. we find that some of theso so-called stupids are ' intelligent ' children — more intelligent often than some of those with a greater skill in passing examinations. Some of the finest characters I have met with among children have been ' backward at their lessons.' Ijet me quote again : ' Here I would put in a plea for the stupid — " the great stupid party." The worst of systems that raise hard and fast distinctions between ability of a certain order and lack of it is that which must fall heavily at times on "' the great stupid party." And this party is worthy of respect; it not rarely supplies a backbone of sound common cense and sterling principle ; it lae;s behind tho keener wits and suffers ridicule from foolish 'masters, but it has a distinct value. The object of teaching is not to produce the largest number of discontented Socrate3, but to raise all to the highest ground whereon they can breathe. "What with innumerable numbers of stiff competitive examinations and crammers and examiners and general papers bristling at all angles, the question of the stupid is — What can Ido to be saved? To be stupid is growing pynonymous with not being able to compete in examinations ; it is not to pass,, to be plucked, hence to be disgraced. ~ And yet from this phalanx of the stupid have come some of those who have died for others without wincing, endured without flinching, entered dens of fever with a prayer on their lips — sent to death not rarely by the sharpwitted, who prefer being politicians and masters of state-craft to being " doers of the word." The average is the great question. Throw lisdit into his mind by opening whatever chinks are possible ; teach him to respect himself and his own capacities ; never allow him to treat himself as a fool.' From an examiner's point, of view it is unfortunate that the finer points of a teacher's work — his influence upon the character and conduct of his pupils, his personality, the every-day relations that exist between him and his pupils, his Dower of winning their respect and love — are by no means amenable to percentages. It is enay to count how many sums are worked correctly by a class, how many words are spelled wrong, how maiiY geographical facts have been f>et down correctly ; but how are we to see that the carefully-worked sums, the correct spelling, the useless ' useful information ' represent a trained intellect and a disciplined will? For my part. I must say it has always f-eemed strange to lne that the men who lank highest in our educational hierarchy and who receive the best pi\y should bo compelled to do such a great amount of uneclucational work, or. at all events, work thai is only menial work as compared with the highest educational work — work that could bo clone equally well by any ordinarily intelligent man who could read and write and count up to 100. Why should highly-edu-cated, cutured men have practically to waste their labour marking thousands upon thousand-; of papers annually. Truly, such work is drudgery, and I should think inspectors would be heartily glad to be rid of it. " This annual examination, then, tests the teachor's work, but fails to test the best part of that work, the part on which all educationists insist as the aim of education — namely, the influence of the teaching on character and conduct. What it doe 3 test it docs not always test either well or fairly. The syllabus is in many parts unavoidably susceptible of various interpretations, and teachers never know what things ' new and

old' the 'higher criticism' may extract froift what is' apparently simple and straightforward. No teacher can reasonably object to his work being thoroughly tested; but it is not fair that practically new work should be demanded in any department unless teachers have first been advised that such work is expected. Take arithmetic, for example. The amount of needless work done in this department in order to be prepared for the annual test is very great indeed. Some of the questions propounded to be solved by children are absurdly difficult, in many cases quite difficult enough for pupil teachers or matrix culation students, and • now a time limit is introduced which is probably an imitation, of the practice in university examinations. It is certainly quite out of place as applied to children in primary schools for a pass examination, especially when, as in arithmetic and composition, not even the best pupils have much chance of doing the work required in the given time. Complaint is often made by business people that the boys from our schools are unable to make satisfactory use of the arithmetic they have been, taught in school. In the first place, I think that those complaining often expect the boys to begin with all the business acumen and special fiThess for the circumstances that they . themselves have been years, perhaps the greater part of a lifetime, in acquiring. At least, there is nothing unreasonable in supposing that there is some force'in this objection, for we find that most examiners after a time seem to forget what is possible with, young children, and, as teachers, we ourselves know how often we overrate the capacity of young children, how often wo demand a certain amount of work, and then find we have demanded too much. If this is so with those whose business it is to gauge as accurately as possible the capacity of the child mind, how much more likely it is to be the case with those who are not brought daily into contact with children and children's work? Business men themselves are not always quite as sharp at figures as the frequency of this complaint would lead us to believe. " In the second place, after allowing for the objection junt raised, there is ci-rtainly groundfor this complaint. But it is not fair to lay all the blame at the teachers' door. Teachers must teach to meet the examination. Everybody would say that the teacher who taught arithmetic without any reference to the class of sums he was likely to get'at the annual examination was blind to his own interests, or more probably he would be called, in plain English, a fool. In arithmetic, as in everything else, the teacher must follow the examination. It is the examination that is the official interpretation of the syllabus. For my own part, I think that about half of the arithmetic that is now demanded at least in the higher standards might well be dispensed with in order that the remainder might be well taught and thoroughly grasped. ' The examination system is- undoubtedly responsible for many- of the evils we find underthis head. Some argue that the individual pass system, with, its annual inspectorial examination, affords protection to the teacher and takes a burden of responsibility off "his shoulders. There is, no doubt some weight in this argument ; but lam not quite sure about the completeness of the protection, nor am I quite sure that the burden of responsibility is one that ought to be taken from tho teacher's shoulders. The teacher knows, or ought to know, the capabilities and characters of those under his charge better than any outsider, however skilled, can possibly know them, and on him should lie the responsibility of properly placing pupils in his school. He knows, or ought to know, as far as it is possible for anyone to know, the rate at which each child should progress. He is able to take into account the steady every day work of the pupil, while any single examination, no matter, how carefully carried out, is almost sure to err. Were the State, owing to a sudden access of socialistic zeal, to take in hand to supply the people with food, and if, in:ordor to simplify matters, it made the yearly allowance, both in quantity and quality, that which the ' average ' man could eat, everyone would say 'How absurd!' Yet, that is precisely what is done with regard to the supply of mental food. A certain amount is settled upon beforehand to be given in a year, and given it must be, even if ft should have to be crammed in. Little wonder that some are troubled with mental indigestion, while others do not get full exercise for tho powers with which they aro endowed. Tho problem is a difficult one indeed to solve, and the individual pass system has no doubt done good work, but it contained within itself the seeds of the evils that have now grown to such proportions, and there seems no remedy for the evils but the abolition of the system. "It hae to be remembered that the individual pass system was in vogue for long in the Home country, but has row been abolished. The same evils appeared there as have appeared here, and a remody has evidently been found. I cannot tell you precisely what is the method now adopted to see that the teaching is thoroughly efficient, but whatever the method is it is clearly one that gives gieater satisfaction, both to teachers and inspectors. If a suitable method has been devised at Home to take the place of the individual pass system, surely we need not hesitate to urge the adoption of some similar method here. "Before closing, let me refer to the subject of cram. In what I have said of cram I must not be understood to discourage in any way good, hard work. Children are sent to school to work, and to wrok hard while there. Instruction is an essential part of education. While we train the mind we must also supply it with material to work on. Children must work as well as the teacher. They do not come merely to_ play at Fchool. What I wish to emphasise is that this hard work phculd not be wasted, but should be directed into the proper channels. A child's school life is not to be made a burden, with the dread of the examination ever befqro the child's mind. The slower children should not be forced on to work so far beyond their capabilities that the teaching has to degenerate into cram in order to attain succo«s at an examination. The ' grind ' of the iiniversity student should not be introduced into our primary schools. Examinations are neceseary and valuable in their proper place; but that place is certainly not the primary school. Let me also remind you that the abolition of the standard pass does not carry with it the promise of easier or lighter work for the teacher. When a teacher's work is confined to making a child acquire some geography, arithmetic, or grammar in order to pass an examination, he is likely to adopt tho readiest means of preparation, irrespective of the educational value of his methods. Freed from the examination he will have to aim. more directly at truly educating. His work will be of a higher character, and will be cor^ respondingly more difficult. Fundamental principles will have to be thoroughly grasped, and all methods must be examined in the light 'of these principles. The substitution of a higher ideal will elevate the teacher's thought to a Lighur plivne, and enable bifla to

pursue. Jiis work in .a more, truly scientific spirit.'* At the close of the reading by Mr J. M. E. Garrow of his paper on the examination system at the meeting of the Education Institute on the 12th. Mr J. "W. Smith said they had listened to an admirable paper from Mr Garrow. As he did not know that it was customary to discuss the presidential address, he would refrain from doing so, and would proceed with a very pleasant duty that devolved upon Mm. That was to propose a vote of thanks to the retiring president, Mr Garrow, not only for his paper, but for the excellent work he had rendered to ' the cause of education during the period he had occupied the chair as president of the Otago Educational Institute. He had taken the position at a critical time, and had an unbroken record as an attendant at the meetings. Mr Garrow had created an enthusiasm, and the result had been an increase of membership. Mr" Tyndall seconded the proposed vote of thanks, and said that from his observation he considered Mr Garrow had been one of the beefc presidents that had ever occupied the honourable position of chairman, of their meetings. He did not altogether agree with all Mr Garrow.'s remarks, but he would say he honestly admired pretty well everything he said. On certain points of education he (the speaker)' knew that he was in a hopeless minority. He also knew that he would not convert anyone — (laughter), — so he would content himself by seconding the vote of thanks. . The Hon. J. MacGregor said lie thought it ■was jrather unkind that lie should be subjected to a penalty for having taking the opportunity of listening to Mr Garrow. He came with the expectation of hearing something -on some educational subject that he thought would be worth listening to, and he was not disappointed. . He was very pleased that Mr Garrow had taken, for- his subject one that was exciting so very much interest at the present time — the subject of the Standard pass, and examinations- gen*> rally. He had no doubt that there was a great diversity of opinion, and probably some xeachers would have something to say in deience of tho Standard pass; and he hoped their opinions would be ventilated. That ■was why the institute existed. Mr Garrow had mentioned one matter that seemed to him to indicate that the inspectors, although they have of late seen their way to arrive at a change of opinion on that important question, had something to learn on the subject. He referred to the remark Mr Garrow pointed out in the inspectors' report as to the test of a good school — namely, that a good school must necessarily attain a high percentage. For his own _part he had some doubt whether the recent change of method introduced by the inspectors was a great change on their old system. — (Hear, hear.) If that was the case he wished to goodnera the teachers .would not bo afraid to say so. The speaker wont on to refer in detail to the methods of examination, and said that, public opinion was ripe for a change.. He thought tho examination grind was harder in Otago than in any other part of the colony. The inspectdrs showed by their rucent change ihat they wore capable of being affected, and he thought the teachers should speak out and teach the board as well as the inspectors. <fhe inspectors needed it. — (Laughter.) They were ' as liable to get into the rut of routine as anyone else. It would be a good thing if the inspectors attended the meetings of the institute and discussed the examination question with teachers. — (Hear. hear. — A • Voice: "That's what we want.") The inspectors should not think it infra dig to discuss educational matters with teachers. •Mr J. J. Ramsay • did not know that he could add very much to what Mr MacGregor had said. He would like to express his pleasure at listening to such anable paper ac that read by Mr Garrow. His pentimentE were much the same with vf gatd to the paper as Mr MacGrogor's, avid he would like to hack up that gentleman's view— (hat the teachers should speak their minds on the subject referred to, and that the inspectors should attend the meetings of the institute. Mr Garrow, in replying, thanked the meeting for the vote. As for as the paper was concerned, he had just written down a few things that had been siDsrasring in his mind for many a loDg day. Latterly he had taken a little more care to observe the ultimate effect of the daily teaching of. the children under his care, and he thought of the effect upon them 10 years after. He thought the excessive memory work would have a disastrous effect if continued for a number of years upon the community at large. Many of tf»P faults in the colonial youth were largely due to a ■want of steady mental discipline at school. It was a thing in which our schools failed to some extent. The work, instead of being slow and steady, was quick and of a mushroom order. He thanked them for the kind remarks made about himself, but gave credit to the Committee cf Management for tiie improvements referred tc by Mr Prtiiih. Before sitting down be must thank Mr Eudey for his exertions as secretary. The Chairman said it was not usual to discuss the presidential address, but Mr Garrow expressing himself as perfectly indifferent in the matter, it was decided to discuss it. Mr F. S. AltJred said, as an old teacher, he might speak with v&gard to the examination question. Under the old examination he considered they turned out much better scholars than they did at the present day. Nowadays the examination was nothing but continual worry from beginning to end. The subjects were heavy, and the children were examined in such a way that it was impossible to attain excellence. It was almost impossible to got a number of the children to answer well on all the subjects. He was sure he was speaking the minds of teachers when he said that the worry was too much. Mr Tyndall, in the course of a humorous speech, said his opinion was that they had got the saddle on the wrong horse. He did not put the trouble down to the examination, but to the syllabus. Fhe-pixths of what was taught was quite enough for the children's mental capacities, but at the same time he did not see how they were going to come to a conclusion as to the result of the work done without the examination. As regarded the stupidity of children, it was quite as large with educationists — (laughter), — and of course it was inherited from their forefathers. — (Renewed laughter.) He thought that the worth of a man was to be- judged from what he ' did, and not as Mr Garrow paid in his paper. The way to test the work that tiad been done was by other work being done, and that was by examination. If they coniined their blame to written examinations he was eye to eye with them, but the classical language of the examiner puzzled the children. He agreed that there was too much work in the syllabus, and it might be cut down to a sixth, or perhaps a tenth. — (Laughter.) Then they could examine every month for all he cared. Mr .Tas. Reid ftlilton) objected to tlie jjro-

posal to examine by "samples." He was quite sure that better results were achieved under the old system, when the inspectors examined a class orally. At the present time everything was mechanical, and there was no mental quickening in the schools at all as the result of the examination. Mr A. M. Barnett saio that he could not help feeling that something must be done by way of a change for the benefit of the children and teachers. He considered the written examination always led to "" cram." In the old days, in 1864, the inspector was a help rather than a torture. Mr Tyndall explained that while -he was entirely against the written examination, he also considered it was quite possible to have the individual pas 3 without it. The Chairman came to the defence of the inspectors, and pointed out that they were not altogether to blame for written examinations. They had a certain syllabus laid down, and had to examine in all these subjects, which they could not possibly do without the written tests. The fault lay with the syllabus, and he would like those present to note the fact. That there was " cram " in their schools few teachers would deny, but he did not think it existed to the extent that the speeches they had listened to that night implied. A great deal that was called " cram " was nothing more than necessary reiteration. He considered that the large number of subjects it was required to teach led to a restlessness and love of change, which was detrimental to character. If they could get their syllabus cut down and its requirements curtailed, they would get better results. They would certainly have more time to derote to what was the essence of, education — viz., the development of character. Mr MathGws maintained that the standard pau;g fostered "cram.'' If the inspectors went round to any of The city schools three months after an examination, between 4-.30 and 5 p.m., they would find 75 per cent, of the teachers at work. If they went down at a quarter to 9 in the morning they would find the children at work. He was talking about what he knew. It was well known that some childrer were taken to the teacher's house at night. All this was the result of tht standard pass. Mr J. Reid thought there was a danger of confusing "cram" with hard work, which he very strongly believed in. Messrs J. Jeffrey (Anderson's Bay), Jas. Smith (Milburn), and others spoke on the queßt'on. after which Mr Garrow replied, and the debate closed.