9

E.—lb

finished reading. Such people, also, do not reflect how little support an Inspector who failed a whole class for lack of intelligence in reading would get from Committees, parents, and, perhaps, the Board itself. I should like to see some attention paid to impressing upon the children the moral lessons contained in many of the pieces in the books. In the preparatory classes many teachers now recognise the fact that Nature instructs her pupils by presenting to them wholes, to be resolved iuto their elements ; and so such teachers employ the " look and say " method in teaching reading, while they exercise the child's analytical and inductive faculties by a combination of this method with the phonetic. A few teachers, however, still adhere to the old plan of drawing so largely on a child's faith as to ask him to believe that tea — aitch — oh — you — gee — aitch — tea spells " thought," or bee — a — bee — ivy " baby." Such teachers, when a child is unable to read a word, ask him to spell it. But, in place of that, they should print the word on the blackboard, get the class to look at the word and pronounce it, and then impress the main sound on the class by frequently changing the initial consonant, and by having the words so formed pronounced. Spelling.—ln Standard I. and Standard 11. pupils were examined orally at all schools except those in Wanganui, where the words were dictated and the pupils wrote them on their slates. The percentages show that, as far as passes go, these standards have much improved. However, the old fault, rote learning, was still apparent even in the best schools ; for when pupils did not kuow how to spell a word, absurd combinations of letters were made. I always forgive a boy for making an error through spelling a word plioneticallj7—indeed, I rather like to see him make such an error ; but a meaningless jumble of consonants shows bad training. In Standard 111. spelling was judged by dictation alone, given by the teacher from the reading-book of Standard 11., a passage almost wholly free from difficult words being selected by myself. The results were often bad, sometimes incredibly so. It was in easy monosyllables, such as "saw," "break," "broke," " knew," that pupils most frequently broke down. Some teachers excused failure on the ground that pupils would spell better in the text of their own reading-book. Truly there is little education, little mental training, in a system that leads children to spell words in a known connection only, or in. one book only ! No doubt many of the mistakes wore the result of carelessness : but then carelessness is a bad fault, while ignorance may be excusable; and if pupils are not careful on examination days, they certainly are not careful on ordinary days. In Standard IV. the spelling was very moderate, and sentences were not recognised; but pupils were not failed for the latter shortcoming. In Standard V. and Standard VI. the spelling was very fair on the dictation papers, but would have been better if pupils had only looked over their work. Many who spelled well in dictation were very careless in other written subjects. I may here state that not one pupil in twenty of all I examine appears to look carefully over his written work in any subject. Writing.—ln the majority of schools the writing was very good indeed. In only two large and about eight small schools could I find no improvement. Those teachers that train the youngest pupils to draw clean, straight lines at the proper slope, and to form the letters correctly in every particular, find no difficulty with writing in the higher classes. In some schools —notably Normanby, Hawera, and Wanganui Infants'—the writing in the preparatory classes was wonderfully good. In the first mentioned school the figuring in these classes was almost perfect. In Standard 11., in many cases, slate transcription should have been more careful as regards spelling, capital letters, punctuation, and paragraphs. For good writing throughout all classes I give the palm to Feilding, Waverley, and Normanby. At some schools, while there is plenty of evidence that considerable attention is devoted to the formation of the letters, the writing is too upright and scratchy, and is lacking in firmness. Arithmetic. —In Standard I. the results in arithmetic showed a marked improvement by 12 per cent., and the work was put down in a much better manner than in former years. Most teachers carry their pupils in this standard beyond the requirements. This is all very well, provided that the pupils thoroughly understand and can apply multiplication and addition. In Standard 11. also there was some improvement, but notation, as usual, was weak. Again, most of the class would work correctly " Subtract 70,804 from 906,375;" but if the sum were stated, " What is the difference between 906,375 and 70,804 ? " half the class would probably put the larger under the small number. Or, again, "Divide 292,315 by 5 " would be worked correctly; but in "I have 292,315 apples to divide equally amongst five boys: how many will each receive?" several of the. class would use multiplication. In Standard 111. a very manifest improvement was shown in the working of problems. Inaccuracy in addition of money and inability to work simple long division and long multiplication were the most frequent causes of failure. In Standard IV. the results showed a great decline, in Standard V. a slight improvement, and in Standard VI. a slight decline, on those of last year. In the best of the larger schools the arithmetic in these higher three standards was very fair; but, on account of its being bad year after year in so many schools in these standards, and after carefully noting the style of errors made, I must come to the conclusion that the syllabus is too extended. In Standard IV. this is very apparent, for few pupils can manage compound practice or square measure. Perhaps, then, when a Standard VII. is formed, these two rules (excepting square links, square chains, and acres in square measure) might be left out of Standard IV. syllabus. With regard to methods, in my last report I pointed out that all data, values of lines, &c, should be written down, and sums worked in a logical fashion. Some teachers have carefully taught their pupils in this style, with excellent results. At Waverley, where every pupil wrote the value of each line, so that the sum could be followed without reference to the question, and worked by first principles, the arithmetic w7as the best I have seen. At this school seventy-three pupils out of eighty-nine passed in this subject, and the passes, as a rule, w7ere very strong, many clearing the cards. Mental arithmetic appeared to have been very much neglected. In Standard I. and Standard 11., and sometimes even in Standard 111., counting on fingers was very prevalent. In Standard 111. and Standard IV., such questions as, " What is the cost of nine yards at 6d. per yard ?" " Divide a pound amongst three people," " I spent 3s. 6d.: what change had I left 2—E. Ib.