THE EXAMINATION SYSTEM

Hokitika Guardian, 25 February 1929, Page 2

THE EXAMINATION SYSTEM

-MARKS FOR SPELLING

A PARENT’S PROTEST

DUNEDIN, February 21

Endorsing a protest by a parent against an injustice to his daughter in the recent proficiency examinations, olie Otago Education Board to-day severely criticised the system of marking in the spelling section of the examination.

Air Auron Dyke, of Melrose Street. Anderson s Bay, wrote as follows: “I beg to bring under your notice the gross injustice of the recent proficiency examination, an injustice to the teachers, .the pupil and the parents. I’he pupil referred to was failed in spelling in the proficiency examination though she was one of the best spellers in a class of twenty-six in term examinations. i The following marks mere gwined for spelling: First term, Ranfurlv 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 of twenty-six.

“In the proficiency examination it is quite possible for a pupil to get twentylive words she lias never been taught. In this case 36 per cent of the words in the paper had not been taught. It is to be noted that three marks are taken olf for every error. This pupil failed not because she was a bad speller, but because she had not got a fair test, being giving 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 words a Standard VI. pupil should be able to spell, but the 4500 words are laid down by the Department, and the teachers may touch over 5000 words and still find that many of the words given in the proficiency examination have not been taught.’’ The Hon T. I). Fleming, M.L.C., said quite a number of complaints had been made about the spelling tests. The pupil’s success in other subjects should have been sufficient to carry her over tlie examination.

“Like Mr Fleming, 1 have beard many complaints this year,” said the chairman (M, James Wallace). “This .strikes me as being an unfair handicap for the child. The cxplanatioi given is that the child did not gain her proficiency because she did not get the number of marks required. I think the chid lost her proficiency because sfie was given words to spell that were not taught to her. The excessive marking for spelling seems to be out of „..e queston altogether. 'There are twenty-five marks and for every mistake three marks are taken off. The girl 1 had six words wrong, and gained only seven marks. That seems over tne odds altogether in marking. They would not mark so heavily as that for arithmetic. It is most unfair. This child, I consider, has been treated most unfairly. Jt is not our local inspectors lam finding fault with. They have to carry out the Departmental regulations, and they do not prepare the papers. This matter should be brought before the Minister, and we should point out the injustice which the girl lias suffered.”

Mr Fleming moved that the attention of tlie Minister be drawn to the letter of protest, which had the board’s endorsement.

The senior inspector (Mr Stuckey) declined to say who prepared the list of words. Teachers were supposed to prepare lists of their own, but in most cases little care was taken with the preparation. In the big schools the same words were being taught in Standards 11, and VI, at the same time.

The chairman: I don’t like that charge being made against the teachers. T. will not allow that to pass without saying that teachers do not draw up lists that are unnecessary. They are supplied with unauthorised books, which are used as their lists. The motion was carried unanimously.