25

E.—lb

NELSON. Sib,— 31st December, 1887. I have the honour to lay before you my report on the Nelson public schools for the year 1887. I have examined eighty-four schools, as against seventy-nine last year, the normal annual rate of increase in the number of schools for several years having been five. There were 5,343 children on the rolls of the foregoing schools on examination day ; 4,965 children were present at examination ; the number of absentees—37B —being much larger than it has been for some time, and, indeed, larger than it ought to be. Of the absentees, 121 were standard scholars. The roll number for this district at the end of the year, including several small schools recently opened, was 5,419. Taking the standard criterion for what it is worth, the schools as a whole seem to have done somewhat better than they did last year, the proportion of passes to the number on the roll being as 52 per cent, in 1887 to 49'9 in 1886. But the preposterous regulation which excepts from the record of failures those scholars only who have made less than half attendances during the three quarters preceding that in which the examination is held, vitiates any conclusion that might otherwise be drawn even from this crude test. The element of chance enters too largely into a method of computation which makes it imperative to record the failure of a scholar whose total attendance during the year may have amounted to less than six months. Until the wholesome system is restored which cut out of the list of failures all scholars who had made fewer than 260 half-day attendances between one examination and another, all inferences drawn from the mere percentage of passes should be regarded with distrust. After reviewing the work of the past twelvemonths, and comparing it with that of preceding years, the outcome seems to me, on the whole, reassuring. To this not unfavourable estimate there are, however, one or two important exceptions, which will subsequently be dealt with. As a rule, the spelling of the older scholars is as good as can reasonably be looked for from children whose vocabulary and reading are alike limited—that is, they do not often go astray with words in common use. They have a moderate acquaintance with formal grammar, though the technical knowledge thus displayed seems to be of little practical service to them either in speaking or writing their own language. They can describe fairly well what they have seen, their power of doing this having been tested lately by their being set to give an account of some indigenous plant or bird; though the results of unskilful teaching are, even here, too often seen in the clumsy prefaces and roundabout endings of their letters, against which I have so often and so vainly protested. Little fault can be found with the attainments of the scholars in geography, the teaching of which is now far less loaded with useless details than it was in bygone days. Considerable familiarity is usually shown with the broad outlines of physical geography, and the causes of such phenomena as tides, winds, and currents are fairly well understood. The geography of these Islands is also thoroughly well taught. Of history, which is generally taught orally, it may be said that the minority, who have a natural liking for the subject, more than satisfy the demands of the examiner, the majority barely passing muster. The same is generally true of drawing, though the proportion of those who take kindly to this art is somewhat larger than obtains with history. There is every reason to be satisfied with the attainments of the bulk of our scholars in arithmetic, although I cannot help regretting that it should still be found necessary to devote so large a portion of the scanty school hours to this subject. The antiquated and clumsy system of weights and measures that still holds its ground throughout the British Empire—in spite of the mass of reasons that has been brought to bear against it, and in spite of the decisive examples of France and America—is largely'accountable for the slowness with which the mystery of ciphering is acquired. It is not inopportune to remark that both Inspectors and teachers appear to me to have erred in too persistently decrying what they term "mere mechanical expertness." This mechanical expertness is the very thing that will stand our scholars in good stead in after-life, and, it is to be feared, is just that in which they will find themselves most wanting when put to the proof. To add up columns of pounds, shillings, and pence quickly and correctly, or to calculate on the spur of the moment the contents of a piece of earthwork, will be found worth more to them than the power of simplifying the most involved series of complex fractions. Although the more pressing demands of other subjects leave comparatively little time for the teaching of elementary science, something has been done in this direction. Many of our scholars can explain the principle of the thermometer, the barometer, or the hydraulic press, and can illustrate their explanation by a well-drawn diagram. The properties of light, heat, and sound are also not unknown to them. The increased attention paid to both school and militaiy drill ought not to pass unnoticed. The various movements necessary to the orderly conduct of school work are now carried out in most of our schools with a precision that leaves little to be desired. In several schools well-trained cadet corps have been formed, and in others, where the numbers do not admit of such an organization, the ordinary company movements are gone through with commendable promptitude. What has been written so far may fairly be termed satisfactory, and if, as will be gathered from the detailed report of each school, this summary is not universally, it is, at least, pretty generally true. But there is a reverse side to the picture. In the two subjects that may be termed the very foundation of education, reading and writing, there is unquestionably much to be done before the best attainable results are reached. It is not too much to say that fully one-half of our children do not write nearly so well as they ought to do—not nearly so well, in fact, as children of like age and standing actually do write in some of our more carefully-taught schools. There is nothing unfair in taking as a standard that ought to be attained everywhere the work shown at these establishments, which are to be met with indifferently in town or country, and which may be either large or small. They possess no special advantages except that of having teachers who know their work, and do it. To quote individual examples may seem invidious; but I can discover no reason, except the art of taking pains, why children of seven or eight vears old at Eichmond Girl's School 4—E. Ib.