E.—lo

10

their opinions xvhen he said that they believed that the principle on which the syllabus was founded was calculated to give the average citizen a very sound education. He had watched the effect of the changes in the last four years. His own opinion xvas that the syllabus xvas excellent, in the main, although he thought it lie might well to reconsider some portions of it, and he also thought the time allotted to some of the subjects should he redistributed. It was said by some that the syllabus xvas too diffuse its vagueness was urged against it. He thought that it's width was its strength. The more intelligent their teachers became, the less difficulty there would be in mapping out their schemes of work, and teaching what they knew best themselves. He hoped the day would not come when the freedom of the teachers would Ik; curtailed. It xvas the administration ami xx'orking of the system- that was the difficulty. Any one who thought over the matter would see that during the last few years teachers had been intrusted xvith the promotion of their own pupils, and had been given freedom of classification. Prior to that time such work had been done under authority. Many teachers had been unable some from diffidence—to catch the spirit of the syllabus and deal with it in the spirit in which it was conceived. He thought that was one of the causes of diffuseness, and it resulted in some measure of desultory teaching; but it was a standing testimony to the teaching in our schools thai there had not been under this tentative scheme greater weakness shown than there had been. The wonder was that their young teachers had done so well as they had done. In school-organization and in formulating schemes of xvork they wanted to help teachers more than they did. He had two well-defined ideas as to hoxv that could be done. The position in that respect xvas recognized in other countries. In Germany, for example, after a six-years course the teacher had two years' teaching under supervision. Despite the excellent xvork done by our Inspectors, the lack of such supervision xvas the weak point in our small schools and in the case of our young teachers. Many of those xvho xvent out at the present time gained their experience at the expense of their pupils. This xvas more noticeable under the present syllabus than under the old one. Despite the criticism that had lieen levelled against the new syllabus during the four years it had been in force, the children they had been turning out were more resourceful- and were likely to be more resourceful citizens—than those taught under the old system, liecause they had to deal more xvith things than xvith words and books as in former days. In some of the best schools in England they had an organizing teacher —xvho should be experienced and skilful in teaching- and it was his business to co-operate xvith the Inspectors and teachers in the mapping-out of the schemes of work and in making the young teachers suitable for their xvork. He thought such a system xvould be a good one to adopt, because the schools to xvhich our young teachers xvere sent were constantly changing their teachers. An organizing teacher could prevent a great deal of loss and make the teaching more efficient. He thoughl thai a want at the present time was a set of " Suggestions " for the consideration of teachers, such as those issued by the Education Department at Home. Any one xvho read those "Suggestions" would agree that they contained the concentrated common-sense of men well worth listening to on any educational topic. These "Suggestions" should lie a corollary to our present education syllabus. It seemed to him that the teachers xvould then do better xvork. The "Suggestions" xvould be for the consideration of teachers in the working of the syllabus. They might deal xvith the draxving-out of schemes of work, and with the syllabus generally. They xvould form a fitting corollary, and would make our education system infinitely more efficient and economical than it was at present. But if he thought those " Suggestions " xvere going to put a nexv syllabus within a syllabus, he would say "Hands off." The "Suggestions" of the English Education Department were simply suggestions; they were not binding on teachers. He thought they should do more in the way of character-building in our schools than xvas done at the present time. He did not mean to say that our children did not in the main turn out good citizens, but he xvould like more definite attention given to character-building. They might turn out boys resourceful and mentally alert and splendid in physique, but they should also turn out boys imbued xvith the highest ideals of life and service. He though* the latter xv.ts most essential, and it required more consideration in our syllabus. Reference had been made io English. He thought the composition in our schools noxv xvas a more real thing than it was in times past. The composition taught now was the child's oxvn thoughts expressed in his oxvn way, more than a mere artificial exercise in the reproduction of other people's thoughts. Composition and the tints given to English xvere two factors that commended themselves to him in the new syllabus. Professor Ktiik thought that Professor Thomas was perfectly right in saying that many of the students came to the University colleges not bearing the imprint of the secondary schools, or so slightly that it was not worth noting. It was an undesirable state of things, but it xvas one of the subjects they could better consider xvhen they were dealing xvith the secondary schools. He xvould like to say something with regard to the teaching of English in the primary schools. He did not think the teaching of formal grammar improved the composition in the least. The English child did not speak the English he learned from any set book of grammar, but the English he heard spoken at home and to a less extent xvhat he heard at the school—to a much less extent the English he heard at the school, because the teacher was so much engaged in the management of the class. The English that he heard generally, and the English that xvould remain xvith him, xvas the English of the home. There were many men xvho could give you a grammatical rule, yet whose English was execrably bad. He had no doubt that Professor Haslnm and Professor Gilray could give instances of classical writers whose winks had survived to this day xvho. if they could come before them for examination in forma! grammar, xvould be "ploughed" hopelessly. We lived amongst a race of native people xvho were really a race of orators. These men knew no formal grammar, vet they spoke their language perfectly because they always heard it spoken correctly. That xvas a sufficient indication that a man could speak his oxvn language well if he always heard it spoken well, and he could do so xvithout the help of grammar. In our primary schools he feared that the time of the pupils that was devoted to formal grammar xvas very largely wasted. Tn secondary