Those who are

of the poorest methods of measurement. most competent to pass such an opinion are the last ones to do so, and they are making the greatest effort to devise some tests and standards whereby the work of the schools may be measured with some degree of accuracy and mathematical precision.

If

We realize that there are some who think that the work of the schools cannot be measured from day to day or even from month to month. There are some who feel that there are some things in the schools that cannot be measured. The tone, the atmosphere, the spirit of the school, it is said, are things that will not submit to the measuring rod, and, no doubt, this is true. But, on the other hand, it can be said that, while such things cannot themselves be measured, if they possess value they will result in something that can be measured. the spirit of the school does not help the boy or girl to learn his arithmetic or grammar lesson more easily and more tho iroughly,t is not the right kind of a spirit. We hear a good deal of talk about the unconscious influence of the teacher, and surely everyone is willing to acknowledge that such an influence is important. But such influence, if it is the right kind, will cause the child to make more rapid progress in his school work. Every one of us knows that those teachers with the greatest amount of such influence were the ones who were most successful in cramming into our heads the facts and principles of arithmetic, geography, and the other studies. If we look back over our own teachers, do we not find that the best ones were those who brought about in us the greatest amount of measurable results? We do not think much of those teachers who, though seemingly rich in their unconscious influence, left us without anything substantial to show for it.

SELF-COMPARISON

Then there are those who question the advisability of applying tests and standards to the work of the schools because they feel that it is unfair to compare the work of one pupil with that of another. Pupils are not alike in any particular, and it is unfair to expect them to accomplish like results. Without doubt it would be unfair to measure all pupils by the same measuring rod; however, it must be remembered that it is not the purpose of educational measurements to compare pupil with pupil, or even school system with school system. The chief aim is to enable a school or school system to compare its own work at different periods. The aim is to discover differences in results and to determine the cause or causes of such differences. If the children of our schools are not as proficient in language or arithmetic as they were this time last year, we want to know the cause. If we are paying more per student hour than we paid last year, we want to know the cause. Educational measurement thus enables us to compare our own work at different periods and to determine what progress we are making.

COMPARISON WITH OTHERS

These measurements also possess great value in that they enable us to know how our own schools rank with other good schools of the country. We find out what other schools are paying for janitors, for teachers, for principals, and other supervisors; we know how the pupils of other schools rank in the several school branches, and we are able to determine how we stand in comparison with them. It is quite a revelation to a school system to discover that it is paying more per student hour and attaining poorer results. Such a school is likely to

search out the cause and do all in its power to remedy it, whereas if it did not find out these things it might go on in blissful ignorance and inefficiency. Thus, while it is unfair to compare individual with individual, much good comes from comparing group with group, and this is one of the aims of educational measurements.

There is one thing that we must remember when considering this question of measurements, and that is that education means change. The child who does not increase in knowledge, ideals, or good habits is not being educated, and we have acted on the presumption all the time that such things can be measured. Even those who are most opposed to scientific measurements in education will resort to the old-time examinations to determine whether the pupil has made satisfactory progress in his school work. Until recently no one thought of questioning the efficacy of such a standard of measurement. But now we are finding out that the old-time method of examination and grading is wholly unreliable, and the movement toward the new standards and tests is an effort to substitute scientific measurement for the old-time examinations and methods of grading. It is an effort to substitute accuracy for inaccuracy, scientific procedure for unscientific procedure.

In the past, momentous questions of school organization and school policy have been determined by the old-time examinations and methods of grading. These have been the sole basis for promotion, retardation, class honors, and admission to college. However, it has been proved that such a system of grading is wholly unreliable and that there is no standard of value by which it is governed. We make 100 the basis; but 100 does not mean the same to any two teachers. One teacher will range the grades between 60 and 100, another between

50 and 100, and another between 25 and 100.

With one

One

80 is an excellent grade; with another, it is poor. teacher will put 75 per cent of her pupils above 90, while another will not put more than 10 per cent above 90. In fact, no two teachers have the same standards or follow the same practice in grading.

OLD-TIME EXAMINATION UNRELIABLE

In order to test the reliability of grades, 142 exact copies, including handwriting, errors, changes, neatness, etc., were made of two examination papers prepared by two first-year English pupils, and these were sent to 142 teachers of first-year English in some of the standard high schools of the country who were asked to grade them according to their own standards and practices. The grades on paper A, let us call it, ranged from 64 to 98, and the great majority of the grades were between 78 and 95. The grades on paper B ranged from 50 to 98, and the majority of grades on it were between 75 and 91. Thus we can see that if the destiny of a pupil depends upon his passing first-year English, he would better look well to the one who is to grade his paper. Five teachers gave paper A a failing grade and 137 a passing grade; 27 gave paper B a failing grade and 115 a passing grade. Nineteen teachers marked paper A 80 or below and 14 marked it 95 or above.

Of course we expect teachers to assign different marks to English papers, because there is so much ground for individual judgment. But when we come to mathematics we do not expect the same variability. However, the facts show that teachers differ as widely in their marks in mathematics as in English. As evidence of this, 118 exact copies of a paper in geometry were made and were graded by 118 teachers of mathematics. The grades on

the paper ranged from 27 to 92. Of the grades, 61 were 70 or above and 57 were below 70. This shows that a paper in geometry is no more likely to be graded correctly than a paper in English. While there can be little ground for difference of opinion as to the correctness of the demonstration, there is a vast difference of opinion as to how that demonstration should be made and the steps in making it.

The grades on a history paper graded by 70 teachers of history, in the same manner as the paper in English and geometry, were distributed about as widely as were the grades on these papers. Of the grades, 41 were 70 or above and 29 were below 70; 12 of the grades were above 80 and 18 were below 60. Thus it can be seen that the grades usually assigned by teachers are wholly unreliable. A grade of 90 given by a teacher in Amarillo may be a grade of 60 for a teacher in Hereford. When a student comes to us from another school, we do not have the least idea as to the meaning of the grades he brings to us. A grade of 90 in mathematics in Amarillo High School may mean that the pupil is very good or very poor when estimated by the teacher of mathematics in Plainview or Lubbock. It all depends in each case upon the standards of value used.

Then, granting that grades are fairly accurate and that teachers will give about the same grade on the same paper, we must still admit that such a system of evaluation tells us little or nothing as to the progress the pupil is making in his work. We mark him 90 in reading this year; we mark him the same 90 next year. This means that we think he has attained to within 90 per cent of the standards we have set for him for the different grades, but it tells us nothing as to what these standards are. One teacher has one standard in mind