South Canterbury Times. THURSDAY, APRIL 11, 1889.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 4979, 11 April 1889, Page 2

South Canterbury Times. THURSDAY, APRIL 11, 1889.

We reprint elsewhere the greater portion of the report of the Inspector of Schools in South Canterbury, on the results of last year’s work as officially observed by him. Feeling an inclination to make a few superficial remarks on the report, we will ask in the first place whether it was quite fair in the Inspector to descend to detail in the matter of excuses for irregular attendance, or to compare in the way he does, South Canterbury with Otago ? He is “ rough ” on the parents for their share in causing irregularity, but takes the sting out of his remarks for them, by “prodding” the teachers with a sharper stick. His remarks on the teaching of reading are gratifying, as indicating that improvement is being effected in reading proper. With his criticism of the weakness in “ intelligent explanation of passages,” we are not at all inclined to agree, not deeming it such an “ important matter.” In our opinion the reading books of the school should contain <} no passages which present any difficulty to the intelligence of the pupils. They do, however, and these are the passages that an examiner requires to be “ intelligently explained ” by the pupil, after coaching by the teacher. If a reading book is so far “ above the heads” of the pupils that they require to have it “ explained ” to them as they go along, manifestly it is not a good exercise in reading for them , as it stands, and the teacher’s time is wasted (if he does the work expected of him) in forcing his pupils to comprehend and before there is any need for them to do so, a few, a very few only, of tbe intricacies of expression in the English language, or, if it is a question of matter and not of form, a few only of the imiumerable facts of nature and art. A taste for reading will never be acquired by anyone who has to worry through lessons which every now and then require to be “ intelligently explained ” to him. Give the children reading books that they can easily understand—and more of them. The remarks on the desks in use will provoke a smile, and the query, Who was responsible for the adoption of such an abortion as is described ? Surely now that attention j has been forcibly drawn to their defects, I there is enough ingenuity in the district 1

to devise an alteration that will make them comfortable without being cumbrous. School-masters and Inspectors are great sticklers for a particular way of bolding the pen. Grown people out of school are not so particular. Assuming that the former are right, it is unquestionable that their way is uncommonly difficult forayoungster whose “ fingers are all thumbs ” to acquire. There are penholders made with attachments for holding the fingers in place, whether they will or no. Has any teacher ever tried these on his pupils’ undisciplined fingers ? We were quite prepared for Mr Gow’s remarks on grammar. The best that he can say of the grammar of the upper standards is also the worst that he could say; the parsing—(the test of knowledge of school grammar)—“ is seldom better than more or less skilful guessing,” Analysis of sentences has improved. It should be improved off of the face of the earth, but for its use in teaching one thing, and so far as we are acquainted with the text books that one thing is never connected with it. We were not, however, prepared for the Inspector’s remarks on composition. He makes neat writing, correct spelling and punctuation, the tests points of composition. Most of the great literary compositions of the age would fare badly under such a test. There is an allusion to grammar thrown in at the end, but good grammar, added to the other perfections named, will not save poor composition. Sense and expression are what the reader out of school first desires in a written composition. The school Inspector should surely have the same standard.