EXAMINATION TYRANNY

Otago Daily Times, Issue 22986, 15 September 1936, Page 10

EXAMINATION TYRANNY

THE PROFICIENCY TEST ABOLITION FORESHADOWED MATRICULATION ON TRIAL (Per United Press Association) AUCKLAND, Sept. 14. “One reform which should have the support of all sensible educators is the abolition of the proficiency examination,” said the Minister of Education (Mr P. Fraser), speaking at the Parnell School to-day. “We should insist that education in its widest sense should have full scope and that children should not merely be hurried on through the year to pass an examination. Internal examinations are useful as a guide to the teachers how best to help a child, but we do not want them to exercise tyranny. Children should not be stuffed with information as their mothers stuff chickens for the table. “ The Government’s ideal,” Mr Fraser continued, “is to give the child a chance from the kindergarten, for which we are planning extensions, onward to become fully educated. We do not want to place a hurdle which will deny or postpone the post-primary education of any child. It should be allowed to go on naturally to secondary, technical or any other form of education as the case may be. This is a matter for serious consideration by the college councils and the University Senate. .... "Those pupils who feel that it is their function in life to go on to the University,” the Minister continued, “ must have an opportunity to do so. But the matriculation ' examation Is on trial to-day. It is an undoubted fact that very few matriculated students actually enter the University. The examination has become, not a test for University education, but a standard of commercial efficiency.” Addressing himself to Mr t. u. Wells, president of the Auckland University College and chairman of the Auckland Education Board, who vyas present, Mr Fraser continued: “Apparently matriculation is a way of getting some revenue sub rosa for the colleges, so that we nave to deal with a vested interest. The colleges will need to find some means of getting the revenue without it. The Minister added that there was too great a tendency at present on the part of educationists to declare that their particular branch was the Cinderella of the education system, and this applied particularly to the University. It was not a helpful approach and was contrary to the idea of education as a continuous whole. The question was not what share each branch of education should be given, but what were its actual requirements. . ' “There is nothing of which I will tike less notice than arguments in the Cinderella strain,” added the Minister, “or references to how much is spent in Britain. The sooner documents containing that sort thing are burned the better. The question is how much is required to place university education and the Auckland University College on a proper footing, and how much is available.”