South Canterbury Times. FRIDAY, JUNE 24, 1884.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 3503, 27 June 1884, Page 2

South Canterbury Times. FRIDAY, JUNE 24, 1884.

Anything feebler or more unsatisfactory than one section of the report of the Minister of Education, which refers to inspection of schools, could hardly be conceived. Here it is : “ The reports furnished by the Inspectors of Schools to the Boards to which they are responsible are printed in a separate paper (E. — 1b), and are well worthy of attentive perusal. They contain very decided evidence that the quality of the instruction given in the schools is steadily improving, and that there is a corresponding advance in the extent and thoroughness of the pupils’ attainments. At the same time the reports contain some frank criticisms of defects that have not yet been removed, and of inefficiency in some cases that requires to be very firmly dealt with. The impression derived from a careful study of the statements made by the Inspectors is that the real progress achieved is considerably greater than that which is indicated by a comparison of the tabulated returns with those of former years.” We have not made a “ careful study ” of the reports in question, as the Minister of Education has done, but we have made ourselves acquainted with them, and the impression we derive from the perusal is by no means so cheerful as that received by the Ministerial mind. We do not doubt the efficiency of some of the inspectors, they are experienced and practical persons as a rule and display energy and devotion. But owing to the peculiarity of their official positions, the value of their reports is almost nothing. The only portions of them to which we attach value are those in which they generalise and point out radical defects in the management of schools. When they give us figures and percentages of passes, we say frankly we place no reliance whatever on these. In the tabulated statement of “ passes ” of children at standard examinations, we find the percentage of children presented, who actually passed, to vary very considerably in the different districts, from 90 per cent in Marlborough to 58.7 in Southland. In South Canterbury, the per centage was 73.2, in Otago 72. Clearly the districts which are blessed with the most efficient teaching power are Marlborough 90, and Wanganui 88. G per cent of passes. In South Canterbury, the percentage of passes in the respective standards, 1 to 6 inclusive, as follows :—90.7, 79.9, 61.55, 63.6, 80.9, or a total per centage of 73.2. According to this the teaching of infants in South Canterbury is in a wonderful state of efficiency, while the fourth standard results are shamefully low—so alarmingly low indeed that special attention ought to be given to the matter forthwith. For purposes of comparison like this, of the results attained in individual districts, the figures set forth in the table are useful and reliable, but for purposes of comparison of districts themselves they are perfectly useless, for the simple reason that the inspectors are men of different temperament, training, and mental structure, and no agreement has ever been arrived at between them as to what shall constitute a “ pass.” This is a matter about which the most astounding in-

difference has always been shown ; and the evil consequences of this neglect, though perhaps not apparent, are real. Until an understanding has been arrived at, the setting forth of the “ results ” in figures will always be looked upon with distrust. The fact is, the machinery of inspection is ill contrived and works badly. There is an officer entitled the “ InspectorGeneral of Schools” —concerning whom the utmost doubt and uncertainty prevails. In what do his duties consist—what does be do—and of what use is he? These are questions we constantly hear asked. The Inspectors know very little about him, except through the medium of formal communications about examinations and the status of teachers ; and the teachers know no more abont him than about the Grand Lama or the King of Siam. And the Inspector-General himself, knows just as little abont the Inspectors and the teachers, and as to the schools well, to him, they only exist on paper. He never visits them or reports upon them and exerts any influence on them—and the other Inspectors go abont their business without regarding him at all. The Inspectors therefore are under no direction or control from a superior officer. At the same time, though performing statutory duties, they are not Government officers, but the servants of semi-public bodies, and therefore entirely under local control. The consequence of this is disastrous. It is pretty well known that there are districts in which inspectoral powers are exercised more or less in certain directions at the will of whoever for the time being may be the most influential member of the Board. It is not every inspector who has the pluck and independence to ignore wire-pulling, and while inspectors are local servants the number of such persons will not increase. Meanwhile the inspection of schools goes on after a fashion, and that is all we can say.