THE GRADING OF TEACHERS.

Taranaki Daily News, 16 May 1930, Page 8

THE GRADING OF TEACHERS.

The teachers’ grading system was criticised in an address at Wellington this week by Professor J. Shelley, who is a member of the Canterbury College staff, and both the criticism andthe response it promptly drew from a member of the professor’s audience were very interest: ing. Professor Shelley deprecated the system as a mechanical measure, not “becoming to the dignity of the teaching profession,” and not beneficial to the children because it involved changes among their teachers. But his strongest condemnation was. on the ground that the system ‘’caused teachers to regard one another with suspicion” and to challenge the ‘grading of other teachers in order to gain advancement. If the critic were justified in claiming as he did that the effect of the system is to set teachers against each other and destroy “trust within the profession” the only possible conclusion would be that teachers as a body are without that dignity which he mentioned and that a rigorous system of discipline is needed to keep them in order. But if that is the opinion of one -who occupies a prominent position in what is regarded as the highest rank of the profession it certainly is not shared by those outside the profession who interest themselves in the work of the schools and the constitution of their stall’s. These people probably have far more respect for the teachers than their very superior colleague seems to entertain. It was, indeed, to overcome th very evil which Professor Shelley stresses that the grading system was evolved and this country happily saw the last of methods that often enabled the teacher without qualifications to supersede his more capable rivals. The weakness of Professor Shelley’s case would have been obviou? enough in a-iy case, but it was dramatically exposed on the spot by one of his audience. The Hon. J. A. Hanan, who as Minister of Education, and one of the most capable men who have held that portfolio, instituted the grading system, vigorously tackled the professor and scored heavily off him. Mr. Hanan’s comments were shrewd and effective and offered substantial justification of the system for which he was responsible. The exMinister, of course, does not claim perfection for the system. Ijut he is entitled to say that it has proved far more satisfactory than the old methode. Its principal weakness was indicated by Professor Shelley when he asked how it could grade personality. That difficulty perhaps could be overcome to some extent if local education authorities were permitted a certain margin of discretion in assessing the qualifications for given positions of candidates nearly equal in grading. The system is not perfect, and it may be that its critics could help to improve it if they would try to evolve constructional ideas, but the teachers and the country <have

benefited by the adoption of grading and owe their thanks to Mr. Hanan for the service he performed in establishing it.