At least 50% of the aggregate was required for a pass, with a minimum of 30% in English or arithmetic, and inspectors had to be satisfied that candidates had been "sufficiently instructed" in other subjects.

George Hogben as Inspector General
In 1904 George Hogben who was headmaster of Timaru Boys' High School was appointed Inspector General. He was a vital and persuasive speaker and his appointment was welcomed by the teaching profession as he believed in consultation with those actively involved in educating pupils.

Hogben believed that children learn better by doing than by book learning. He abolished the standard pass in every class but continued the Certificate of Proficiency. This examination was still conducted by the school inspectors. The subjects to be tested by examination were reading, spelling dictation, writing, composition, arithmetic, geography and drawing, and there was a general assessment of efficiency in other subjects.

Proficiency, as it became generally known, qualified pupils for free education at a secondary school or district high school, and soon functioned as a testimonial for school leavers.

The emphasis this gave to the Proficiency Certificate had not been Hogben's intention. He had written, "Slavery to formal examination tests has been perhaps one of the greatest obstacles to progress and accordingly should be guarded against in future."

The Certificate of Competency
In 1904 an additional certificate was introduced - the Certificate of Competency. It was designed for those who did not pass the Proficiency examination but had 'fulfilled the requirements of some standard of education". This entitled pupils to a place at the Technical schools. In 1913 it was decreed that for the Certificate of Competency pupils must gain 40% of the aggregate, with 50% in reading and composition and 30% in arithmetic. In 1916 endorsements were introduced to record special merit in handwork or elementary science.

Pass marks raised for Proficiency
In 1906 the pass mark for Proficiency was raised to 60% of the aggregate with 40% in arithmetic and English. In 1918 the minimum mark for English was raised to 50%.

In 1903 when the Secondary Schools Act was passed Hogben had expected a third of candidates to pass, but in spite of the raised pass level in 1907 the pass rate was 59%, in 1908 it was 68%, and in 1912 it rose to 77.1%.

Why were pass rates so high?
There were several reasons for the pupils' success in the Proficiency tests.

First, parents wanted their children to get free places at secondary schools and there was pressure on children at home to pass their Proficiency.

Second, employers had come to regard Proficiency as a good indicator of the level of education and skill of job applicants and it became an important testimonial for employment.

Third, teachers were well aware of the demand for passes in Proficiency and geared their teaching to achieving success in the tests.

Fourth, because a school was often judged by its pupils' success rate in Proficiency slower learners were often held back in classes further down the school and so did not reach Standard 6 and sit the Proficiency test.

Promotion of brighter children?
In 1924 it was suggested that brighter children should be pushed through the classes faster. This idea was not popular in most schools as they liked their brightest Standard 6 pupils to be as skilled as possible so that they would lift their averages in the examination marks.

The system not too rigid
When Adelaide Wise was sitting her proficiency at Leeston in 1935 she had an accident which prevented her from sitting one examination paper. She was allowed to go to Southbridge District High School in 1936 and complete her proficiency test while there.

Proficiency certificate awarded to Adelaide Wise in 1936 (Click here for a larger version)

Reverse side (Click here for a larger version)

Proficiency examination finally abolished in 1937
The first recommendation for the abolition of Proficiency came in 1926. In 1929 the Competency Certificate was abolished.

From 1937 Proficiency was abolished and replaced by primary school leaving certificates. This led to a broader approach to teaching programmes and abolished the link between Proficiency marks and secondary education. No longer did an external examination decide the type of secondary education a pupil could receive.

In 1939 Peter Fraser, Minister of Education, stated that it was the Government's belief that every child should have free education of the type best suited to his need for as long as he could benefit from it.

How did people who had to sit Proficiency view their education?

Madge Dymond looks back
My home life gave me security as we had loving parents who worked hard to care for us.

I was born in Scotland in 1906, but the family came to New Zealand in 1914 so that my father could find work. My father had been trained as a plumber, but could not find work in his own trade and became manager of a milk company. Even in New Zealand he couldn't get any work as a plumber, so he worked for the Christchurch Dairy Company. My mother was economical and a good manager, so we never went without any necessities. I was happy to be living in New Zealand. My main worry in life was sitting exams. I did well in them but it was always a surprise as I had little self confidence.

In my schooldays I was in large classes. I remember writing on a slate and rubbing it off with a sponge, and learning to write using what was called a copybook. Printing was only on alternate lines and we had to copy exactly the beautiful writing above. I really enjoyed that activity.

In the English syllabus I enjoyed writing compositions, but I didn't really like sentence analysis. Multiplication tables were recited every morning and arithmetic and spelling were important subjects. Mental arithmetic which we had to do quickly in our heads was a bugbear as I was afraid I would not work out the answer in time before we were given the next question. History was mainly about England and centred around dates - 1066 and all that - and geography was about countries and facts like their capital cities and exports.

I was always stressed about exams although the teachers prepared us for them very carefully. I passed my Proficiency and my parents did not expect me to go straight to work, so I was one of the privileged girls of my generation and was able to go to secondary school for two years. Because I wanted to study commercial subjects I went to Avonside Girls' High School, even though it meant two trips by tram get there. After two years there I took a commercial course at Gilbys Commercial School.

I look back on my childhood as a fulfilling time except for the worry about examinations. However, my education enabled me to have a responsible office job which gave me the money to live an interesting life as an adult.

Neil Clarke looks back.
Neil, born in 1908, had a good opportunity to watch education at work as his father was a school teacher and he also entered the teaching profession. He attended school in a number of South Canterbury townships, then Lyttelton and then Addington, a suburb of Christchurch. In his view the pupils received an excellent grounding in the key subjects of reading, writing and arithmetic, and if they passed Proficiency and then left school they had the basic skills to enter the workforce.

Neil taught at first in schools where pupils were being prepared to sit Proficiency and later experienced the broader curriculum that was introduced from 1937. He found that when the rigorous standards of formal learning demanded by that examination were removed teachers were able to give their pupils a broader education, with more time for music, drama, art and craft, science and physical education.

What will be the result if national testing is re-introduced into New Zealand primary schools?
Will it mean that pupils become more skilled in the three R's? Or will it mean that primary school pupils experience added stress in their lives? Will the present wide ranging testing of a representative sample of primary school pupils by replaced by limited pen and paper tests? Will teachers work to a more restricted curriculum and spend less time developing children's creativity?