GRADING OF TEACHERS

Dominion, Volume 11, Issue 275, 9 August 1918, Page 3

GRADING OF TEACHERS

AN AUCKLAND COMPLAINT

DEPARTMENT'S REPLY

A statement was mailo .'or publication by tlio Director of Education, in reply to some statements made at 11 deputation representing the Auckland Assistant Masters' Association, which waited on the Minister during his recent Msit to that town. It was alleged by the deputation that tho teachers graded in Groups 3 and i in tho Auckland district had iheen victimised through unwarranted 'nlcri'erence by the Education Deparimont. The abridged report of the Minister's reply which was sent out by the Press Association did not fully state the case in reply to tho allegations made, and tie Minister was asked to approve the publication of tho following statement:—

"The deputation to you as Minister of Education was not a representative ono since it spoke in tho name of the Auckland Assistant Masters' Association, a small section of the Auckland teachers. The statement that during the 1918 grading 'after the inspectors had allotted their marks there had been interference on tho part of tho Assistant Director of Education, who ordered a reduction in the marks/ is contrary to fact. It was found after the preliminary grading had been made that in Group i tho Auckland district had eleven teachers in the highest two stages, while CanterbuaY had four, and' Wellington and Otago combined four, though in proportion to the number of teachers in this group in each district Auckland should- have, at most, only five. Again, in the highest three stages in this group Auckland had thirty.ono teachers, Canterbury nineteen, Wellington and Otago combined fifteen, though Auckland's proper proportion would be,.at,most, twenty. In this group the Auckland assistant masters, in particular held eighteen places in the highest three stages, Canterbury four, Wellington and .Otago combined nine. The Auckland assistants' proper number should not have exceeded nine.

"Again, in Group 4 the average marks of the teachers • in' Auckland were 1\ marks higher than those of Canterbury, and 3 marks higher than those of Wellington and Otago combined. All that the Department did was to lay these facts before the Auckland inspectors, who immediately and unanimously decided that they had marked on too high a standard, which was, of course, selfevident. Vo order for a reduction in the marks was given by the Assistant Director of Education, but after the inspectors had deliberated for a day they themselves reported to him that in order to secuire a uniform standard of appraisement they would have to reduce their former standard of inarking. The conditions and results wore similar with respect to Group '3. As some of the teachers concerned would be slightly lower on the J9lB grading list than they were on the 1917 list, Ihe Assistant Director of Education invited all Group 3 and 4 teachers in Auckland to meet him in the presence of the inspectots and of the Executive of the Institute. He placed before the meeting all the information concerning the high standard of marking which had been placed before the inspectors, and put it to the meeting whether their sense of fairness would allow them to claim to maintain such a pronounced advantage . over tho other teachers of New Zealand through a lack.of that uniform standard of appraisemont which the Auckland Assistant Masters' Association had so persistently urged at the initiation of the scheme. In answer to a question, and in the presence of the inspectors, tho Assistant Director of Education informed the hieetiug that ho had given no order or instruction to reduce the marks, but that the inspectors had unanimously agreed that this was the only course vo be followed. • "The other teachers in Auckland and those in other districts of the Dominion will thus see that far from justifying any distrust in the administration of the grading scheme by the Department, the incident should show how closely tho interests of all the teachers of JS'cw-Zea-land have been watched. If is regrettable that the Department's frankness in giving them tho fullest possible information has not been justified as far as the Auckland assistant masters are concerned., l'V many years the teachers of New Zealand, through their institute, had urged the Department to introduce a Dominion grading scheme, ana after tho matter had been deferred for Some time the present scheme was introduced in 1916 by direction of the Minister. "Tho Auckland Assistant Masters' Association is a small but very persistent and very self-centred body, which under tho system existing before the initiation of the Dominion grading scheme, ' was able to secure for its members nearly all the best headmasterships in the largest Auckland schools. Such a policy would not have been tolerated or even suggested in any other part of New Zealand. It was not surprising, therefore, to find that the only opposition "to the initiation of the Dominion grading scheme came from Auckland, and that this opposition was nearly all fostered by the \Auckland-Assistant Masters' Association. They no doubt foresaw that the unusual privileges they had managed previously to secure could not be obtained under a general pcheme which guarded, the interests of the whole body of teachers. Seeing, however, that during their opposition they stated, that their greatest fear with regard to the new scheme was 'hat a uniform standard of appraisement could not be secured, it is surprising now to find, from the utterance of the deputation to the Minister, that the Auckland Assistant Masters' Association would willingly secure an unwarranted advantage over other teachers in the Dominion, evon at the expense of that uniformity of appraisement which thev professed to greaily to desire."