THE GRADING OF TEACHERS.

Timaru Herald, Volume CXLIII, Issue 20781, 16 July 1937, Page 8

THE GRADING OF TEACHERS.

Nothing more refreshing and authoritative in the way of critical comment on New Zealand’s natonal system of education, has been voiced within recent years than that indulged in by several of the most distinguished educationists who are visiting this country in connection with the New Zealand Educational Fellowship. Such a spirit of complacency has been developed in high educational circles in New Zealand, that the plain outspoken denunciation of certain phases of education in New Zealand, will fall on the authorities with something of a shock. It is not surprising that several of the visiting educationists who speak with the greatest authority, should feel called upon to speak with such strong condemnation of the New Zealand system of grading of teachers. From the initiation of the scheme, the more enlightened of the teachers have admitted that, the scheme is fundamentally unsound. But not only is the system itself unsound and incapable of just Dominion-wide application, because of the clash of viewpoints within the inspectorate itself, but it has the effect of destroying initiative and hampering freedom. This view has been held for years by many lay educationists, whose views, of course, are something of an anathema to many of the leaders in education in New Zealand. Mainly on the lines that the grading system ensures the appointment of the highest graded applicant, the existing grading system has been tolerated. It has the support of a majority of the teachers, and so far no. Minister of Education Ims shown sufficient courage to scrap the system. It ought to be said, however, in defence of Ministers who have held the portfolio of education within the past fifteen years or so that no Minister of Education has held office long enough to secure a firm grip of the problems confronting the administrators of education and then give legislative effect to the policy evolved out of experience. It is refreshing therefore, to note the obviously well-informed criticism several vsiting educationists are pouring on the system of grading teachers. Not only so, but Professor Hart, of California University, has turned his critical eye on the work of the inspectors. New Zealand inspectors should, he said, rather be supervisors whose duty is “to teach the teachers to teac(i.” Moreover, this outspoken visitor goes to the core of the weakness when he insists that “the teachers could not do their best before an inspector when they knew that their promotion depended upon his impression of their work.” Inferentialiy this is a criticism of tho lack of freedom permitted the teachers because any experiments attempted by the brightest teachers may yield disastrous res.ults because the exercise of such freedom in everyday teaching may not please an inspector who has not kept pace with educational progress, and the subsequent individual loss of vital grading marks.