GRADING OF TEACHERS

Hokitika Guardian, 16 May 1930, Page 8

GRADING OF TEACHERS

PROFESSOR SHELLEY’S VIEW. WELLINGTON, May 14. Criticism of the teachers’ grading system' was uttered by Professor J. Shelley in the course of an address at Victoria College. The criticism unexpectedly brought to his feet the Minister of the Crown (Mr Hanan), who was responsible for 'he introduction the scheme. Professor Shelley said that he did not think that the grading of teachers was ever likely to produce the best results. He laid stress on the influence of the teacher’s personality on the pupils, and he asked who was to grade personality? It was not be-| coming to the dignity of the teaching profession that such a mechanical measure should be applied to human beings. The grading involved changes in the teachers in charge of a class and that was not beneficial to the children. He agreed that, up to a certain point, it was possible to main* some sort of a register which would he useful when it came to making appointments, but be condemned the svs- 1 fnm which caused the teachers to renwd one another with suspicion. They bad to challenge the grading of other | inor-Vrs in .order to gain advance- | ment. That was iniquitous. “Tt is I who was responsible ifor tto establisment of the grading sysfem.” said the Hon. J. A. Hanan, rising in the audience, when discussion was invited. Those who were aeonc'cted with the conditions under which appointments were made previously, he said, would admit they were not satisfactory. As the Minister of Education he had received re-1 solutions, from various educational bodies, urging him to establish a grading scheme, and he had done so. “T realised at the time,” said Mr Hanan, “that it was not possible to establish. a perfect scheme. It had, its weak - nesses. It has been improved from time to time, and still has weaknesses, but, with all its faults, you now have a system that guides the payment, and it represents a great improvement on / f he old promotion conditions. The aim and object of the scheme is to secure, as far as possible, the recognition of merit, and to provide a wider field of promotion. Mr Hanan said it gave the young teacher of outstanding merit a good chance of obtaining a position anywhere in the country, and in .that re-' speet, it had done away with the old parochialism. Professor Shelley: “It sets one teacher against another. It is not going to develop a better spirit amongst the teachers, or of trust within the profession.” Mr Hanan: . “Ho you urge that the grading system should be abolished uow?”- ( Professor Shelley said that he would urge the abolition of anything that tended towards mechanisation in education. Mr Hanan: “You have got to replace it with something else. What would you suggest?” Professor Shelley: “It is not my business in five minutes to suggest a j scheme of organisation which would probably entail the reorganisation of . 'lie whole of the department.” I “Why not think of something con-! stnictive before you condemn the grading system?” Mr Hanan asked, (Professor Shelley, amidst applause said that he thought he had already put something constructive to the meeting. “I would like to reinstate local interest in education,” he said “and I am not sure that it could not e done by applying local taxation to local education.” i P. Fraser, M.P., said that the grading svstem had all the defects of a mechanical system, but the point \vas how to get rid of its obvious shortcomings and yet improve it. i