PROFICIENCY EXAMINATION.

Timaru Herald, Volume CXXV, Issue 18201, 28 February 1929, Page 12

PROFICIENCY EXAMINATION.

QUESTION OF MARKING. The system of marking spelling papers in the proficiency examination was severely criticised at the meeting of the Otago Education Board last week (says tlie “Otago Daily Times”), when a letter was received front Mr A. Dyke, of Anderson’s Bay, regarding what he described as the unfair treatment of his daughter. The •■tier was as follows : “I beg to bring under your notice the gross injustice oi the recent proficiency examination —an injustice to the teachers, the pupil, and the parents. The pupil referred to was failed in spelling in the proficiency examination. though she was one of the best spellers in a class of 26. In term examinations, the following marks were obtained for spelling:—First term, lianturly School, 24 marks: second term, Anderson’s Bay School, 24 marks; third term, Anderson’s Bay School, 25 marks. Only three others obtained full marks out of a class ot 26.

“In the proficiency examination, it is quite possible for a pupil to get 25 words she has never been taught, fn this cas.e, 36 per cent, of the Avords in the paper had not been taught. It is to be noted that three marks are taken off for every error. This pupil failed, not because she was a bad speller, but because she had not received

a fair test by being given words she had not been taught during her school career. Is this fair to the pupil? It is not. it is not fair to the teachers—they are working in the dark. The Department mentions 4500 words as the number of Avoids a Standard VI. pupil should be able to spell. The' 4500 Avords are laid doAvn by the De-

partment. and the teachers may teach over 5000 Avoids, and still find that many of the words given in the proficiency examination have not been taught. “This pupil’s average for two examinations in Anderson’s Bay School is

as follows: Reading 69, spelling 24£, writing 19, composition 60, grammar 30. arithmetic 57. The inspector’s marks were: Reading 71, spelling 7, writing 19, composition 57, grammar 28, arithmetic 54. Note how closely the marks correspond except in spelling. “The pupil’s total marks for the three terms were: First term, Ranfurly School, 340; second term, Anderson’s Bay School, 32> ; third term, Anderson’s Bay School, 351 —total 10L8. Some of her school companions have received their proficiencies with, totals ranging as low ns 865. Why should this be?

“To prove that this pupil is above the average ability, I may say that she received the second prize in the school at Anderson’s Bay for her Navy League essay ?n Standard VI. Her head teacher had no hesitation, in recommending her for her proficiency. “Hoping that you will give this question your careful consideration, tor the benefit of the* pupils, their teachers, and their parents.” The chairman (Mr J. Wallace) stated that he had received many complaints of this kind of thing, and .t seemed to him that an injustice had been done in the case of this child. — (Hear, hear). The child did nob her proficiency certificate because she did not obtain the required number of marks, but that was only one aspect of the case. The excessive marking in spelling was out of the question. The number of words given was 25, and three marks were taken off for every incorrect word. The fact that the child had been given only seven marks because she had had six words wrong seemed to be over the odds. It was most unfair treatment}. He was not finding fault with the local inspectors. They had to carry out their instructions; out lie thought that the matter should be brought before the notice of the Minister, and the unfairness of the position pointed out. Mr D. T. Fleming then moved—■

“That the letter be brought under the notice of the Minister of Education, with the endorsement of the Board.” In seconding the motion, Mr J. Mitchell described the system as improper and ridiculous. He could not help thinking that the girl had suffered an injustice. The test of spelling should not contain words outside those taught during the year. The Minist-

er’s attention should be drawn to the fact that the reduction for incorrect words was out of proportion to the total number of marks.

The chief inspector (Mr F. G. A. Stucky) said that teachers were supposed io make their own lists of words taught during the year, but in this respect little care was token. He had known of cases in which the same word was being taught in Standard VI and Standard II at the same time. In big schools, there was not sufficient coorJination ;n rhe teaching of spelling. The chairman: I do not like to hear }hat charge against the teachers. It is not .necessary to supply lists. Unauthorised books are being used instead

To this, Mr Stucky replied that tin syllabus provided that lists must b< kept. In eight years at school a chib did not learn 4500 words, because ther. was 3Uch a tremendous amount of re petition from .-lass to class. The chib might learn only 3000 words. He want ed to defend the test, which lie con sidered ft perfectly reasonable one io the proficiency examination. The ex amina.tion was hold to pick out th pupils v ho were fit to go on to second ary education. There were four way: in which a child might fail the examin a tion. He might not obtain 50 pe: cent, in reading, or 50 per cent, n composition, of -40 per cent, in aritli metic, or. finally, » : 0 per cent, over th-: whole examination, fn this case, the firl did not obtain 'lie necessary aggregate. If she bad obtained four more marks in any subject, she would liavi passed She gained less than 60 pei cent. ,n arithmetic, grammar, compos if ion and spelling, and more than (if per cent, in reading and writing. I was said in (lie letter that the head master had recommended her for hei proficiency, but as a matter of fam ihe headmaster bad recommended the wlio’e of ’the class of 26. Hie inspect ors did not think that it was a 100 pei cent class, and accepted 65 per coni. It was the only school in Dunedin u which the headmaster had recommended all the pupils. Of the nine pupilf who were examined, onlv one passed. Other children who had gained more marks in spelling than the girl in question had failed the examination. On going through the lists he found cases of eight or ten pupils who gained the proficiency, who had less marks in spelling than the girl in question, and one who had passed had no marks in spelling at all. A child could not fail through bad spoiling alone. “li we went into a newspaper office and told the men how to set tvpe, we would be called presumpimm* ' u-es." Mr Stucky concluded, “bur you try to tell us how to run a proficiency examination.” After further discussion, the notion was carried.