NEW SCHEMES

Hokitika Guardian, 27 December 1930, Page 2

NEW SCHEMES

PROTEST BY TEACHERS DEPARTMENT’S PLAN.

The views of the executive of the New Zealand Educational Institute on certain recent 'developments in the direction of reorganisation of the education system, are detailed by the secretary of the New Zealand Institute, Mr H. A. Parkinson, in a letter to the Minister of Education, the Hon. H. Atmore, “The report on educational reorganisation brought down by the Parliamentary Committee made certain recommendations, which have met with wide (though not universal) acceptance. and which are still under discussion and appraisement, says Mr (Parkinson. “The committee asserts in the report treat some of its recommendations, particularly in regard to administration, are in opposition to the Department. Information gathered from various parts of the Dominion through the Press has led the executive to express to you its anxiety concerning the probable result of certain activities of the department. It lias been given out to the public through the Press that the department is considering the introduction of Pertain recommendations of the committee, where this call be done Without the passing of legislation, It may he permitted to recall here that the chief recommendations of the committee were the recognition of the 11 plus pupils’ exploratory period and a system of unified control. What the department appears to be contemplating, is the passing over of the 11 plus pupils to the dividend post-primary schools as at present existing, and it is to draw attention to the evils that must necessarily follow \ such action that this letter is written.” USING REJECTED PROPOSAL, “It is clear that.if the department’s present proposals are carried out, it will in effect be tantamount to putting into operation the scheme that the Parliariientary committee rejected. The Director of Education had proposed, according to the report, a completely centralised scheme on the Australian model. The committee rejected this in favour of a scheme, based upon local control of local affairs. The keynote of the committee’s proposals was unity of control under a single local authority. The proposals that the department now appears to be putting forward disregard unity of control, and threaten a serious reinforcement of tbe position of the existing > divided authorities by adding to their sphere the pupils of the 11 plus period. This would be so great an addition to the vested interests of the bodies entrenched within these divisions that the establishment of unity Would be seriously prejudiced; and as the divided bodies at present existing have few remaining powers, since practically all authority has been taken from them by the department, the proposals now under review mean, in effect, nothing but most autocratic, of the department. This development was foreseen by the committee. “It is obvious that the apparent policy of the department is consistent with the intentions of the committee since it disregards unity of control, and will reduce the opportunity for classification of the 11 plus pupils, and adjustment of staffs. “One other feature which has alarmed the executive is the fact that communications, perhaps instructions, have been sent to boards under seal of confidence, with the result that decisions appear to have been reached on .a very important- public question without public discussion or information. It is, therefore, very important that no further steps in the direction .contemplated by the department should be taken until the form that reorganisation is to take shall have been decided.

SERIOUS CONSEQUENCES. “The serious consequences of persistence in the present course iof the department are not difficult to foresee. Tbe first that comes into view is the final establishment beyond hope of reversal of the department’s policy of centralised control and the extinction of any hope of a restoration of local control, even though the form and semblance of local control may be retained. The second is the too-early division of pupils at the 11 plus period by the mere names secondary and technical, or, us proposed at Gisborne, by sex. This means the sacrificing of the chief benefits to be anticipated from the exploratory period, viz., the classification of pupils according to discovered aptitudes, tlie provision of parallel courses, and the efficient mobilisation of teaching power in any given area.

“The worst evils of the present system arise from tbe drafting of pupils into schools mot suited to their needs, and the evils will be perpetuated and multiplied if this drafting is done regardless of individual needs and aptitudes at the age of 11 plus instead of, as at present, at about fourteen. It cannot be doubted that, consciously or unconsciously, a bias will be imparted to these young pupils according to the school, academic or technical, to which, they may have been drafted. It is only natural that the junior ranks of a school will be inclined toward the regions of study that predominate in the upper school, and the main purpose of the proposed reorganisation will be defeated. The ■one great hope of the reorganisation is the provision of the exploratory period ooupled with the opportunity for classification according to aptitudes and tbe realisation of this hope depends on the pupils being enrolled in

large numbers under a single author--I‘These are some of the benefits that the reorganisation proposed in the ieport foreshadows. They will be lost by the premature handling over of the pupils of the 11 plus period to the admittedly inefficient post-primary machinery at present in existence.