SCHOOL CLASSIFICATION.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXX, Issue 385, 5 March 1908, Page 3

SCHOOL CLASSIFICATION.

Charges Against the Head-

master.

Heard Before Chief inspector Braik. A special meeting of the local School Committee was held last night in the schoolhouse, for the purpose of ventilating the long standing classification grievance at the local school. The subject has been referred to in these columns on many occasions; it has been a bone|of contention at school committee meetings for months past. Briefly, the facts are as follows: — Shortly after the ,: present headmaster, took charge of the local school he re-classified the scholars. As a result, a number of children in almost every class were put back, or disrated, in some cases two standards and this, in face of the fact that they had been promoted to their standards at previous examinations. This naturally displeased parents, aud, it is alleged also disheartened the pupils so disrated. Complaints and protests against the headmaster’s action were made to the committee by , parents, and several children were taken away from the school. At almost every committee meeting the subject has been discussed, and the committee as a whole, while recognising that the master has the power under the Act to classify, objected to his over-riding the inspector’s examinations and re-classifying the children according to his own standard. The subject was referred to the Board and it was decided to appoint its Chief Inspector (Mr Braik) to hold an inquiry and report to the Board. The matter has been so acute that one committee chairman has resigned, and other committeemen contemplated a similar course of action, but the present chairman decided to fight the matter out. The headmaster has courted a full inquiry, and a number of parents also desired that their complaints should be thoroughly sifted. The Chairman of Committee (Mr Baker) collected the complaints and invited parents who had any grievances to attend last night’s meeting. Among those present were the following members of committee :—Messrs Baker (chairman), Henuessy, Frankland, Henderson, Betty, Levett, Rae-Howard (acting secretary); Mr Alf. Fraser (member of the Board), Mr Adams (headmaster) and several members of the teaching staff and a number of parents. Mr Baker (chairman), in opening, said they were present at the Board’s instruction, to state complaints against the headmaster’s action re classification. He read a resolution passed by the committee at a meeting held on 12th December, informing the Board that great dissatisfaction existed among parents in reference to the headmaster’s action re classification, and that the result of the recent examination was not as satisfactory as was expected, and asking the Board to suggest a remedy. The Board replied that the matter had been referred to the Chief Inspector, The Chairman read the various, clauses of the Education Act, aud contended that while the headmaster had the power to promote he could not disrate scholars. His action had unfairly handicapped a number of scholars, in preventing them from attending the High School. Had the late headmaster continued in charge the present state of things would notVn.have existed.

Mr Braik here informed the Chairman that the headmaster had full power to classify. The Chairman explained that the classification made by the late headmaster in September, 1906, met with the approval of Mr Braik. The present headmaster took charge of the school at the beginning of 1907, and put back a number of children, whose classification had been approved by Chief Inspector. He considered Mr Adams’ action was contrary to the Act, and he had exceeded his powers. Mr Braik again said that the Act unmistakably stated that the classification was entirely at the discretion of the head, teacher, who could classify as well as promote. The Chairman said it was remarkable that one teacher could undo what another had done. It was also casting a slur on the Inspector, and made it appear that the latter was incompetent, which was presumptuous. He recapitulated that Mr Stewart had classified the school, the Chief Inspector was satisfied with such classification, and yet Mr Adams had over-ridden them. The Chairman, at this juncture, warmed up to the subject, and there'was an outbreak of applause. This called forth a mild rebuke from the Inspector, who asked that the proceedings be conducted dispassionately. The Chairman admitted a nervous temperament, and apologised. Mr Hennessy suggested that if the complaints were taken the meeting . would progress a little faster. Mr Braik explained that there were five interested parties, a nd he was not only there as an assessor, but as un interested party, and he must.bear his share of the responsibility. No doubt Mr Adams’ intentions were the best possible, and he was aiming for a higher degree of perfection for the school. It was possible, however, to do a gqod thing ip a wrong way. Inspectors usually bud great difficulty in restraining teachers from promotion. In this case, the local committee complained because promotion was not more rapid. In March, 1906, he inspected the school, and bis report was neutral.

His duties were then new. and be had to proceed with a fair amount of caution. In September, 1906, he again examined the school, and this examination had been referred to by the Chairman. He was aware at that time, that Mr Stewart was about to retire after a long and honourable career with the Board. His report was neutral, and, although * a slight protest was made in his report, he was not going to damn the school He preferred to allow a little sentiment, under the circumstances. He did not say what an inspector might have said. He did not accept Mr Stewart’s classification without demur, aud read his remarks on -the examination in support of his statement. He did not want Mr Stewart to leave the school with a stigma on the work being done. He did not say Mr Adams was justified in The steps he had taken re classification. He inspected the school in March, 1907, and his report was neutral. He had a talk with Mr Adams re classification, and purposely put back the examination for two mouths in order to give the children disrated a chance to regain their former positions. This, on the understanding that Mr Adams would have nearly a year in which to classify and bring the scholars up to their former positions.. Unfortunately he was unable to conduct the examinations last November. The result of that examination they knew. Every teacher aud examiner has a different standard or ideal. The present difficulty is that Mr Adams has adopted a very high standard. He has a mgb£ideal. However, that was his look out. They might advise Mr Adams to modify but he was entitled to set his own standard and perhaps the present difficulty has arisen through Mr Adams overstepping the bound of reasonableness. He dealt with a specific case where he thought Mr Adams should have exercised a little of the principle of give and take. The girl in question came up for examination in Standard VI., and had gained a competency certificate. Mr Braik here animadverted on the difference between a competency and a proficiency certificate. There were no marks prescribed in the syllabus to guide the awarding of a competency certificate. If a scholar were found to be working well and doing his best, he was entitled to receive such certificate. It should be called a consolation certificate. No doubt the girl in question had earned a competency certificate. The remarks that appeared in the press in reference to this girl’s case, showing the work in detail, were most unfairly put, and misleading. The marks in geography and drawing did not count. Geography had been taught at the school, but not as set out in the syllabus. The girl having gained a competency certificate, should have been presented for examination in Standard VI. by Mr Adams, and her case stated to the examiners. Mr Adams stated that he did not know the girl possessed a competency certificate till after she had been examined in a lower standard. ' Mr Braik said the matter should have been referred to him direct.

The parent of the child, who was present, stated that a protest had been made to Mr Adams when the child was disrated, and he promised to put her back in Standard VI. Mr Adams stated that if this child had been put up, other parents would have demanded like treatment for their children. Mr Braik said in the case of this girl who held a competency certificate it was quite unworthy of Mr Adams in reducing her. He further stated that it was not conducive to to the best interests of the school to give information of this nature to the press. This girl’s case was exceptional and should have been mentioned to the examiners and considered on its merits. The action of the headmaster in this particular case was unjustifiable in spite of the fact of the high testimony he could bear of Mr Adams’ ability as a teacher. • In reply to Mr Braik, Mr Adams stated that a number of promotions had been made since the last examination, a list of which would be forwarded to the Board. The Chairman cited several c&ses, where children, who had been disrated by Mr Adams at this school, and had left the district, i had passed the standards they were originally in before being reduced, at other schools, with marked ability. A number of other minor complaints re classification were investigated at length. The Chairman finally contending that Mr Adams possessed very high ideals; but his actions had been very indiscreet, and something should be done to alter the present system of classification throughout the Dominion. Mr Braik said the proportion of scholars in the preparatory classes was too high, and the percentage of pupils in the . upper classes was the lowest in the Dominion. Extreme measures have not improved, but rather accentuated matters. A list of recent promotions would be forwarded to him by Mr Adams. The old method proposed by the Chairman of examining pupils individually, as against the class as a whole was a very debatable subject. Mr Baker favoured the methods of the “good old days,” but they must progress whh the times. He would faithfully report alj that had transpired at the meeting to the Board, and hoped that the result would reduce the tension. The committee filled a very important position in our educational system, and its. duty was to see that justice was done to children and parents. The Board

would see that fair play existed between teachers and children. Owing to pressure on our space, it has been necessary to cnrtaiKhe report, but we will again refer to the meeting in a future issue.