SCHOOL COMMITTEE.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXIX, Issue 3769, 17 August 1907, Page 3

SCHOOL COMMITTEE.

Classification Rodovlvus. Headmaster’s Explanations. A special meeting of the local School Committee was held on Thursday night, for the purpose of asking the headmaster for an explanation in reference to his classification of the school, as a number of verbal complaints had been received from parents by committee men, and they were in the dark as to how they should proceed. There were present: Messrs Clemett (chair). Baker, Hennessy, Perreau, Wilson, Gray and Coley. The headmaster was also in attendance. Apologies were received from Messrs Betty and Frankland.

Correspondence was read from the Board’s Inspector re dairying classes, arid from the Borough Council re sanitary rate. A letter was read, signed by Mr Arthur Reeve, complaining that his child had passed very creditably into the second standard, where she had remained for about four months, when she was put back into the first standard. The writer asked that the “headmaster be instructed to place the child back into the proper class.” The Chairman said the position was, as far as he could judge, that the headmaster had the power to classify and was responsible only to the Inspector. The headmaster said he could not recognise the letter. The classification of the school was thoroughly explained to the committee in April last, when the books and examination papers of the scholars were placed at the committee’s disposal. He said the committee had had fair warning, and -he knew there would be trouble. He presumed the committee at that time had discussed the matter of classification and examined the papers, otherwise they would not have passed the resolution endorsing his (Mr Adams’) action. He took exception to certain portions of the committee’s reports which had appeared in the press, because there was something evasive about them. Mr Adams then asked Messrs Hennessy and

Gray whether the complaints made / by parents to them in regard to ■i the classification were in writing. Mr Hennessy said the committee were not assembled to judge Mr Adams. They were elected by the parents of the children attending the school to watch over the latter’s interests. Complaints had been made to him by parents about the classification. Parents could not understand why their children had been put back. Either the system or the Inspector must be to blame for what had happened. When the children were put back they lost heart. • Mr Adams again asked whether Messrs Hennessy or Gray had received written complaints. Mr Gray said the complaints were not made against Mr Adams as a teacher. He wanted to know what the committee’s position was. The complaints made to him were not in writing. Mr Wilson said the meeting was not a court martial on Mr Adams. The committee wanted some enlightenment. Mr Baker said the committee wanted to know what to do when complaints of this nature were made. The committee was a buffer between the Board r. nd the 'parents. He thought there should be friendly relations between parents and master. He did not agree with the present system of classification, as different teachers adopted different standards of what work should be done in each class. Mr Adams had a very high ideal, and perhaps this was fortunate for the school, but he thought he had been a little indescreet. Mr Coley wanted to know whether a scholar who had been put back from the fifth class to the fourth would be allowed the next year to pass the fifth and sixth classes at one examination. Mr Adams said that the committee had passed a resolution to the effect that any complaints from parents should be in writing. Mr Coley: “ Certainly, have it on paper.” Mr Adams continuing said that such complaints should be sent on to him. This had not been done, put seeing that the committee had brought up the matter he would - read to them four cases which he had cited for the Inspector’s perusal, and which would be forwarded at once:— Typical Case No. i.—This was a boy nearly 15 years of age, who has been one of the most regular attendants at the Foxton School. His parents have been given to understand that he has passed all his standards with flying colours and thnt he was one of the most brilliant boys in the school. He was in Standard VI therefore it was an easy matter to investigate as each pupil had entered his examination work in a book which has to be kept for a year. I turned up this boy’s promotion exam,, September 1906, and. what -|iid I find? In arithmetic alone me had scored 200 marks out of a 'possible 200! Now a possible is not obtained every day and who would rob a boy of his honour ? Eet us examine this possible and see how he got it. Here it is: Promotion Exam, arithmetic Standard V. 200 marks. ‘‘ Now' examine each sum separately. No 1 is an ordinary bill of parcels with no fractional work in it. The first line is 19 lbs at 2s 6d per lb. Any child in Standard II ought to do that mentally or be fired into Standard I. for the little ones learn that there are eight half-crowns in a jQ and they will tell you that two eights equal sixteen and three V more make nineteen. You will

agree it is not very hard for a Standard V. boy aged 14 or 15. He did not work it mentally or on his slate. He worked it with a lead pencil at the “ side ” and receipted the bill on the “ top ” where other people usually put the date and this is what he wrote across the receipt “ paid with thanks 128.06.” For this effort and writing £ s. d. in capitals, the wrong way, this Standard V. boy obtained 40 marks out of 40. No. 2 sum is most simple, tons of coal at £\ xos 6d. per ton. Standard 11. in any other school could have worked it easily ; Standard 3 would have worked it mentally. This hoy did it partly by practice and partly by some other method which is beyond the piathematical power of any ordinary individual and yet he got the possible. Sum No. 3. at is 4d in the £ ? Did he get it right—someboy got it right and the boy was awarded 40 marks for it. Sum No. 4. says 385 square feet equals and that equals 15s. What the sum was and how the answer was obtained is not shown. It contains something inexplicable lor it was first marked ‘ ‘ right ’ ’ then “wrong” then a third person came on the scene and marked it “right” again. Anyhow the lad got 40 marks for just writing down that “ 375 feet equalled £lB and that equalled 155.” and who is going to dispute it. The last sum says: Principal 6s Bd., No. of years 3, rate per cent Answer : £2O 16s 6d. and he gains another 40 marks, making a record of 200 out of 200. Now, for the obverse. In the first examination in March 1907, this Standard VI. boy did his best and obtained no marks out of 200 in the same subject on so much of the year’s work as he had then overtaken. At the second exam, in April he was awarded 10 marks out of 200 for being able to do a multiplication which he ought to have done by practice. The five sums he worked were from a Standard V. card. He was then given a Standard IV. card from which he could not get a single sum corect, and and yet there are people who will say that this boy ought to be dragging and handicapping Standard VI. pupils. Since then the lad has been examined once it the V. where he obtained for all subjects a total of 185 marks out of a possible 800, there being 8 subjects and yet six months before he could get 200 in one subject. Since then he has been examined twice in the IV. Standard where he obtained 250 and 264 respectively, the maximum in each case being 800. Yet this boy last year obtained the possible it Standard V. His books and papers are here and the facts are indisputable. His actual work is here for 1906 and 1907 and you can see for yourselves whether the classification for 1906 or 1907 is the more reasonable. This is not an isolated case. I can bring scores more some worse, some better. I agree with a committee man that this state of things is very unsatisfactory to parents. Will he candidly and outspokenly declare that I am responsible for it. The committee saw the examination papers on Tuesday evening, April 16th, 1907, when they unanimously passed a resolution endorsing my view of rectifying the status of the school.

Typical Case, No. 2. —Take the case of another Foxton boy aged 12, a regular attendant. At the annual promotion exam, in September, last this boy, who was in Standard IV., obtained 160 marks out of a possible 200 in arithmetic. In most schools he woujd have been awarded more. I consider 180 would have been a fair number for the work shown. This Standard IV. boy had a much harder card to do than the Standard VI, boy previously mentioned. This lad’s sums were put down in first-class order —no lead pencil marks, no figuring on the side, everything posted up neatly. The examiner penalised him for adding up a sum wrongly, the items were correct, but the answer had been altered. He scored 615 marks out of a possible 700, besides' obtaining the mark excellent for geography. He was not allowed to communicate with any other pupil during the exam. Now, this boy who did the real work was put into a class at least a year below the first-mentioned boy. In my examinations I recognised this boy’s ability, and up he went. Is there any member of the School Committee or general public manly enough to declare this boy is in his wrong place? Then what is wrong with the classification? There are more cases like this, but the public never get to hear of them for the reason that parents do not as a rule ‘ ‘ buttonhole ’ ’ and complain when their children have been promoted. Contrast cases 1 and 2, which has to go ahead ? Class No. 3 was that of a girl, a comparatively new arrival in Foxtoh, and a most irregular attendant. Her transfer certificate distinctly states that she is placed in Standard 111. for English and arithmetic, and that she had made no attendances at the school she left since she was promoted. I have a letter from the girl’s head teacher, pointing out that the girl was a weak pupil in Standard 11., yet immediately she attended Foxton school she was promoted to Standard IV., and there she remained till I arrived on the scene. Will this satisfy the public that the classification was right ? The Chief Inspector, in his report dated September 13 and 14, 1906, says “ In such a school as this a much greater proportion of pupils should take the proficiency certificate. One would indeed expect to see a flourishing Standard VII. in the school.” When I took over the school I found Standard VII. occupied by unqualified

pupils who had not passed Standard VI. Parents were under the impression that if a child had obtained a competency certificate it had passed Standard VI. Now, no child is deemed to have passed Standard VI. until it has obtained a proficiency certificate, and according to the Act (Inspection and Examination of Schools, clause 25) no child can be placed in Standard VII. until it has done so. Upon my arrival I had, therefore, no alternative but to scatter this Standard VII., and two of the pupils are now in Standard VI., and the remainder in Standard V., and yet some people will argue that the classification was correct before I arrived. Mr Adams stated that he had never seen competency certificates until he had come to Foxton. He quoted the Act in respect to them. In conclusion, he stated that if the explanations given do not convince the public he would produce a hundred cases and many worse than those quoted. The classification of this school, he said, will never satisfy the general public until the School Committee stop pandering to the parents in granting of exemptions. He further stated that to-day there were two pupils over 15 years of age in Standard IV. and eight over 14; in Standard 111. there was one over 15, three over 14 and n over 13; in Standard 11. there were four over 13, eight over 12, and seven over 11; in Standard I. there was one over 12 and four over x 1; in the Primers there was one over 13, one over 11 and nine over 10. A state of affairs, he said, that surely does not exist in any other school in this Dominion.

Mr Adams said he could not enter in discussion with the Committee and retired. Mr Hennessy said there had been a fault somewhere and it was the duty of the Committee to investigate it and represent it to the proper quarter. The Committee only bad the welfare of the children at heart. Mr Gray expressed surprise that a certain matter had not been mentioned to him months ago. He did not know what good a committee was if it could not deal with these matters. It appeared to him that they could not make a complaint. The duty of the committee appeared to be to attend to the sanitary arrangements of the school. The sooner the committee disbanded tne better. Mr Coley said the committee had the opportunity of dealing with Mr Adams but had not done so. He thought that Mr Adams was in the right and he hoped the committee would not say anything behind his back. The Chairman moved that any further complaints re classification be forwarded to the Inspector. Mr Hennessy said he would move that the committee take up their hats and go, or in other words to resign. They didn’t appear to have anything to do except attend to sanitary arrangements and cleaning the school. Mr Gray seconded the amendment. Mr Coley rose and wished to propose a vote of confidence in the headmaster. Mr Baker said that while he was in sympathy with the amendment he intended to remain on the committee. Mr Wilson did not favour resigning. He thought the committee should not show the white feather. He would like to get out of the job but he thought ihe householders who returned them should be considered. Mr Perreau said he would not retire. Mr Coley said the committee should finish its term of office and then resign in a body. He would be sorry to see any one resign as the whole committee had worked hard for the benefit of the school. The amendment was lost and the resolution was carried. The Chairman’s resignation was then considered. Mr Clemett said he had given the matter careful consideration, but owing to illhealth etc, his determination was final. The resignation was accepted with expressions of regret from the members and the meeting rose.