1.-8

33

(/.) That similar estimates of general class efficiency be made of the subjects of reading (including subject-matter and comprehension), spelling and dictation, writing, arithmetic, and grammar, and be similarly recorded ; (g.) That the additional subjects remain substantially as they are, with the exception of subjectmatter ; (h.) That the general class efficiency of the school be estimated by combining the percentages of general class efficiency; but that schools should be graded according to the teachers employed, and an allowance made of one or perhaps two subjects in favour of those having only one teacher; and (i.) That a portion of the teacher's income be made dependent on the general class efficiency reaching a fair estimate. I know that the last suggestion would not prove a popular one with teachers, and it is just possible that a strong control might be able to dispense with such an inducement; but it appears to provide a very convenient self-adjusting balance of labour and recompense. I have, &c, W. J. Anderson, M.A., LL.D., Inspector to the North Canterbury Board of Education. James G. Wilson, Esq., M.H.R., Chairman, Education Committee.

Mr. D. Petrie to the Chairman, Education Committee. Sic,— Naseby, Otago, 26th November, 1887. I have only this day received your letter of the 10th instant, but I hope that my reply will be in time to be considered along with the evidence submitted to the Committee. Question 1: I consider six the lowest age at which children should be admitted to a public school. On the average, a child who enters school at six will, in two years or at most in three, be in every way as far advanced as a child of the same age who has entered at five. In all parts of the colony the age at which Standard I. is on the average passed is now and has long been about nine years. If children generally entered school at five years of age, the time taken to reach the Standard I. stage of proficiency is absurdly long, and this shows that the pupils enter too young to take full advantage of the teaching. Ido not think a higher age than six should be fixed, as it would practically raise all round the ages at which the standards are now passed. Question 2: It seems to me very undesirable to charge fees for the higher standards. It is the interest of the State to have as many pupils as possible pass in standards higher than Standard IV. Ido not doubt that the imposition of fees in Standards V. and VI. would greatly reduce the number of pupils who would study the work of these standards. Question 3: lam of opinion that slight modifications in the Education Act would lead to a great saving of expense without any sacrifice of efficiency. Though it hardly comes within the scope of the question, I may perhaps indicate how these savings could he made. The placing of the inspectorate under the Education Department would allow of very considerable savings. By this change some Inspectors, whose time cannot be very fully employed at present, would be able to lend assistance in other districts, and thus as many as two Inspectors could be dispensed with. It would allow, too, of occasional transference of Inspectors from one district to another—an arrangement which, I think, highly desirable in the interests of the teachers and the pupils. At present the Inspectors under each Board of Education have to draw up numerous sets of examination tests, and these have to be printed at considerable expense. The time now devoted to this work by the Inspectors in Otago, or North Canterbury, or Auckland would almost suffice to draw up examination tests for the whole colony, if the same tests were used throughout, as might very well be done. In the other twelve education districts the Inspectors would be relieved of this duty, and would be able to devote much more time to other departments of their work. Again, twice the cost incurred in getting these tests printed for one of the larger districts would produce a sufficient supply for every part of New Zealand. What has been said of standard-examination tests applies equally to the preparation and printing of examination papers for pupil-teachers and for scholarships. On the whole, lam decidedly of opinion that very considerable savings could be made by the changes indicated, and that the work of school inspection could be carried out for the whole colony with at least two Inspectors fewer than are at present required. Great savings could, however, be made without making so radical a change in the Act as the placing of Inspectors under the Education Department. For these it would suffice if the department were authorised to issue to the district Inspectors all the examination tests to be used in the standard examination of schools. At the same time a uniform programme for pupil-teachers and scholarship examinations, to be in force throughout the colony, should be fixed by the Education Department, which should also draw up and issue to the several districts the examination questions to be used year by year. This arrangement could not allow of any reduction of the present staff of Inspectors, but it would set them free from a great deal of office-work for more important duties, and save much expense of stationery, and especially of printing; and all this, be it noted, with no sacrifice, but with a probable gain of efficiency. I have long been of opinion that part of the cost of school-buildings should be borne by the districts in which they are erected. Some legal means of raising money would have to be created. In fact, Education Boards are practically irresponsible for all expenditure on this head, and it would be strange if abuses did not arise under such a system. The abuses that, as I think, exist consist of the needless multiplication of schools and the pulling-down of fairly suitable buildings to meet an outcry for better ones. Elected as Boards now are, it is often impossible to avoid abuses of these kinds, and I am convinced that the only true way of reforming them is to compel the districts in which new schools are required, to provide part of the cost of their erection. Such a

s—l. 8.