8.—12.

64

[c. k mtjlgan

223. You would still let it be understood that the marks were required in each of the examinations ? —Yes. 224. You said you believe in the accrediting system : do I understand that you would apply that to the scholarships that would be given to those who were just leaving the primary schools with certificates, and who wish to go to the secondary schools?— Yes. Indeed, I look forward to a time when we could apply it to the scholarship-holders, but I would not do that now. 225. You would give it for the present on the Junior National Scholarship?— Yes. 226. Mr. Thomson.] Would it greatly help the uncertificated teachers if they were allowed to take their examinations in sections? —I think so. 227. Would you advise that they be permitted to do so? —Not more so than is provided in the old regulations. 228. Mr. Pirani.] Do you think it would be advisable that all Native schools should be under the Education Board as a matter of common practice—that there should be no exceptions to the primary schools? —I have not had much experience with Native schools, but from what I have seen, 1 think it would be a good thing if they were put under the Education Board. That opinion might be modified if I knew more about them. 229. Do you think it is fair that the students in training colleges should be debarred from doing relieving work in their vacations? —I would rather put it in a different way, and say that I do not think they should be required to do relieving work. I do not think they should do relieving work. 230. They are not working at the training colleges from November until March : do you not think that in that interval, as is the custom in America, they might be permitted to do relieving work if they want to supplement their income ?—On the whole, I think not. I think the student requires that time for preparation for the work for the coming year. The work of the year, as far as the student in a training college is concerned, should be strenuous work, and he requires the interval for preparation. 231. Do they use that time in preparation?— There are a great many ways of preparation. They might prepare by going down the harbour on excursions, or by chopping wood. T consider that a valuable preparation for a year of strenuous indoor work. 232. Do you think they should be permitted to take private work during that time for pay, although not permitted to take public work in their occupation ? For instance, we have pupils in the training colleges who do private teaching, and there is no objection to that. Do you think, then, that there should be any objection to their taking public work in schools?—l do not know that there is no objection to it. If it came to the knowledge of the Board, I presume that the Board would inquire as to how much private work is being taken, and if it were too much they would object to it being done. 233. Do the Board take any steps to inquire? —I do not think they do. 234. Do you not think it would be fair that the student who went to the training college— say, a B student— should be allowed to count his time at the training college towards the increment of his salary ? For instance, pupil-teachers in our district point out that if they do not go to the training college for a few 7 years their salary will go up by £10, whereas if they do go to the training college they go back to teaching at the same salary as before —at £90. Would it be a fair thing to say that those two years should count towards the increment of the salary in the same way as if they- were working at a school?— The salary- is attached to the position. When the pupil comes out of the training college he takes up his position with a minimum salary, and that seems to me fair. 235. Would it not be fairer to let him start afresh where he would have been if he had not gone to the training college?— Some of the students from the training college begin at £90, some at £120, and some at £150. 236. Would it not be fairer to give the student at the training college £100, which would be equal to the increment they would be earning ?—I would much rather see the system altered in another way, making the minimum salary £100. 237. Is it not fair to pay the student who has been through the training college more than he would have got if he had not attended the college?— That does seem an anomaly, but there are several other anomalies that we have to put up with. 238. If the training college is worth anything to the student it is worth something to the pupils? —The training is worth a great deal to the student, not immediately after he comes out of the college, but five or six or ten years later. It enables him to rise in the profession. In this district a pupil-teacher must matriculate before he or she is eligible to enter the training college. If he matriculates he goes to the training college at £60 a year. If he does not matriculate we may be obliged to employ him, and may find him a position at, say, £100 a year. This seems to be putting a premium on idleness. 239. Could not that anomaly be removed if you allowed the period of training to count to the efficient teacher the same as to the inefficient teacher who does not go to the college?—l do not think it should be done that way. 240. The Chairman.] Is the time ripe when we should say that a teacher is not efficient because he has not been to a training college?— No. 241. Mr. Pirani.] He is inefficient in that he cannot pass matriculation. That is our case in many instances. He is inefficient, but we may have to employ him to man our schools. He does not possess the ability to pass the examination. 242. Mr. Kirk.] Does it not resolve itself into the answer you have already given—that prospective advantage is better than immediate advantage? —That is so.