5

E.—l2a

3. It is not desirable to postpone the commencement of secondary education until fourteen or fifteen years of age. We do not doubt that some boys or girls would do good work even then, under great disadvantages, if they would continue long enough at school. Experience has shown, however, that such pupils rarely contemplate remaining long at school, and are generally non-progressive. It would be much better to commence secondary work, if possible, at twelve. 4. The admission of a large number of pupils fourteen or fifteen years of age, who had only just passed Standard VI., would cause considerable difficulty in the organization of a secondary school. Being mere beginners in all secondary subjects they could not be classified along with younger pupils who had made some progress in secondary work, and they would require special teaching. In fact, whether they were few or many this would be necessary, and would be unfavourable to general good work. 5. The raising of the standard of examination, together with the raising of the age, would not further the object asked for. If a child could not pass Standard VI. under fourteen he would not be any more likely to pass a harder examination under fifteen. 6. As it is intended to make provision by senior, junior, and residential scholarships for our own high-school pupils practically to the full limit of 3 (d) of the regulations, the suggestion of section 6 should not be entertained, especially as it opens up a very difficult and dangerous question. If entertained at all, we should still have to safeguard ourselves by an examination test, and that would be a return to the status quo ante. 7. No case of hardship under the age-limit of the regulations has come under our notice, but there have been many country children who have not accepted the scholarships for which they have qualified, because of the insufficient provision for board. This may affect other country children also. 8. With regard to district high schools, we are of the opinion that the existing anomaly would be removed, and all placed on an equality, if the age-limit, for the reasons given in sections 1 and 2 of this report, were made to apply to district high schools also. If this, for any unknown reason, be deemed impracticable, then the syllabus of the district high school should be of a continuation-school or technical character, according to the local requirements. I have, &c, The Secretary for Education, Wellington. David Sidey, Secretary. Marlborough High School. Sir, — High School, Blenheim, 15th June, 1904. With reference to your circular dated the 26th May, I am directed to forward a copy of a letter received from the principal of the high school, in reply to a request for his opinion of the proposal contained in the said circular, and to recommend his remarks to the favourable consideration of the Department. I have, &c, The Secretary for Education, Wellington. John Smith, Secretary.

[Enclosure.] The removal of the age-limit would, in my opinion, have a prejudicial effect upon the organization of the secondary schools and upon their standard of work. The present limit of age does not press severely, for the child who was unable to pass Standard VI. when under fourteen would gain little advantage from a secondary school. Indeed, lam of opinion that many of those who do pass under fourteen might very well have been excluded. I have had to place nearly half of the free pupils admitted this year in a lower division with a separate teacher, in certain subjects, as it is extremely unlikely that they will be able to pass the Civil Service Junior Examination in two years from their admission, and their presence in the class impeded the progress of the others. Next year, when a new body of pupils of unequal attainments and industry is admitted, this difficulty of classification will be intensified. For this reason I should welcome a scheme for selecting the best of those who pass Standard VI. If this were done, and only those who obtained a certain proportion of marks (not necessarily high) received free places, I for my part should offer no objection to removing the age-limit. Of the free pupils admitted this year, some are wholly undeserving of their places, and their exclusion would be an advantage. The proposal to remove the age-limit is made largely in the interests of country children, but the real difficulty in their case, unless they are near a railway-station, is the provision of board and lodging in town. If money is to be spent in the interests of country children, it should be in the direction of providing scholarships for the brightest among them to enable them to board in town. This principle is the basis of our own scheme, and I believe it might well be extended by the Government. I suggest an addition of, say, £1 to the capitation now granted, conditional on this extra capitation being employed by the Boards in giviug scholarships of not less than £25 to country scholars not within reach of a high school by rail. The retention of an age-limit, or the substitution of a limit of attain ment within the standard, might have a beneficial effect in stimulating to greater energy of work and regularity of attendance than could be expected from parents and pupils who knew that easy-going negligence would give a right to free places at whatever age the pupils passed. John Innes.