E.—lα.

2

The examiners we're the same as those of last year, with two exceptions the Eev W H. West, 8.A., LL.B , examined in English for Class E, instead of Neil Heath, Esq , who was unable to undertake the work this year, and the examination in school management and the art of teaching was conducted by E J Gladman, Esq , Fnncipal of the Training Institution in Melbourne, instead of by Principals of normal schools in this colony The greater part of Mr Gladman's report is herewith submitted for publication. I attach also a file of this year's examination papers, omitting only those set m drawing and music The amount of money received as fees from candidates this year is £452, the cost of the examination being .£439 12s Bd. A considerable number of teachers have been successful in passing examinations at the University during the year, and have by this means obtained certificates of the higher classes. I have, &c , Wm. Jas. Habens, The Hon. the Minister of Education. Inspector-General of Schools.

Exteact from Mr Gladman's Bepobt on tho Examinati6n in School Management. In Section I,* several teachers presented the time-tables they use in their schools. In whole sets of papers, also, the same form of time-table appears. A question of this character seems to have been anticipated and prepared for On the other'hand, soma candidates are evidently unpractised in drawing up time-tables , their schemes are rambling the sequence of subjects is ill-considered, some subjects are not provided for , the supervision and actual mode of working are not indicated, and there is no summary showing the time given to each subject during the week. Candidates should aim at compactness and completeness the time-table asked for did not need to occupy more than half a page, the supervision could be indicated by reference letters or by underlining, and all the necessary references and explanations could come below Some who attempted the second question have made creditable answers others have not adhered to the arrangement indicated in the question. Many have wrong ideas about principles, and have made strange replies in consequence. Section II. —A large number of answers to the first question are needlessly diffuse candidates have spent so much time over it as to leave too little for later questions. The uses of registers to the teacher are generally overlooked the meaning of " average "is not understood " days " are taken instead of "times;" "not less than" is interpreted as "more than," and many egregious blunders are made on this simple and every-day matter The alternative question is usually done better Section lll. —The notes of a lesson are often more like essays than what lesson-notes should be , some candidates have aimed at showing how much they know of their subject, rather than at showing how they would teach it. Too little attention is paid to arrangement for teaching purposes, and method is not indicated with sufficient clearness. Even where separate columns are drawn for matter and method, both are often jumbled together in a fashion which shows want of clear-headedness, and an inadequate or wrong idea of the purpose and use of the columns. Some have been wise enough to show a fair half-hour's work, and have then indicated the lines of treatment they would adopt in future lessons, others do not seem to have regarded the matter from the practical side, and have made their notes far too long, or else too meagre. Frequently there is an assumption that children know all about tho subject, and such directions as these appear—" Get the children to name," " Have the battles named," " Obtain who won," —before the information has been given. " Elicit this," is not infrequent where eliciting would be out of place, if not impracticable. How to " elicit "is seldom shown some say they will " elicit by many skilfully-framed questions," but they give no specimens, and no indication in detail of what they mean. Sucli evasions of the most difficult points create an unfavourable impression in an examiner's mind. Absurd inaccuracies, which I forbear to particularize, are found in places. Some attempts at illustration are creditable, others very feeble. I would earnestly recommend young teachers to practise drawing up lesson-notes they need not follow any one plan, but they should always show every detail clearly, and should indicate how they propose to deal with every point in turn. In Section IV most candidates have attempted Question 2 it has appeared in much the same form at other examinations, and seems to have attracted notice, for several answers are very creditable. Almost all say that definitions should come after examples it is strange, therefore, that in Section 111. some of these very candidates should begin their lesson-notes with a definition, their theory and practice do not agree. The question on reading has not been handled well. The phrase " violations of sound principle " is ill-understood. Children's mistakes are given, instead of teachers' faults, which were asked for Detail is seldom mentioned, but only the broadest indications of method are given , and, generally, there is far too low an ideal of what a reading-lesson should be. Only a few have attempted the question on cross-multiplication, and no one has shown much power in dealing with it the device of using a diagram to demonstrate or get the children to see the reason for the rule is not employed at all.

*Vide the paper on School Management, at page 7