TEACHERS AND GRADING

Dominion, Volume 14, Issue 26, 26 October 1920, Page 10

TEACHERS AND GRADING

Sir -Having followed with' some interest the controversy between llr. loigyth and the Minister ot Education, 1 siould like for the benefit of either to state that neither myselt nor my as» ants received any voting paper .» purnorted to be sent out by the Depart ment and consequently we cannot bo included in the 1200 who. replied to the said circular. As all teachers, so ,a , liavo not received voting papers, the statements appearing in your issue: Ot October 21 aro misleading. In an) case the taking Of the suggested, vote would lead to no sound conclusion, ucca«(.e ■ those teachers who aro well up on the grading list, would naturally vote lor it. and those lower down, or nho consider they are under-classified, would l»e ,er to trust to the discretion of Hie lwlncation Board. So long as the piesent absurd "quota" marks are used, there will 1m little eliance for the young, and brilliant teacher. The grading .ist as at present constituted is based almost entirely on length of service and age cf teacher—presumably like good wine wo improve, with keeping. If all education boards are going to rule hard and fast bv the grading list many an injustice will be done, and many an old and tired teacher will be appointed to positions where youth and energy are required.— 1 ara ' cto " HEADMASTER.