E.—l2.

[». CAMPBELL.

66

8. Coming to the appointment of teachers: does the Institute mean that the matter of the appointment of a teacher should not be brought before the School Committee at all? —The Institute is very definitely of opinion—with more unanimity of opinion on this point than any other point you might possibly question me on —that the appointment of teachers should remain solely in the hands of the Education Board. We have had considerable experience in this way. It is a point Which touches us very nearly; we have had many years' experience of appointments resting under the dual control of the Boards and the Committees, and we are of opinion that nothing could be more unsatisfactory as a system. The present Auckland Board about three years ago instituted the grading scheme, which has since been working to the entire satisfaction of the teachers. Of course, a number of teachers happen to be discontented with their places on the grading list, but as a scheme it has the almost unanimous approval of the teachers throughout the Auckland Province. Under that system the Board makes a selection from the names of the applicants. That selection is made nominally by the Board, but practically by the Inspectors sitting as a Board, and classifying once in two years all the teachers in the employment of the Board. When a position becomes vacant the inspectors make their recommendation of one name to the Board, and the Board then practically automatically sends on that name to the Committee. 9. Under the present system the Board gives the Committees an opportunity of objecting to a proposed appointment: would you abolish that? —No, 1 would not. 10. That is not quite clear in No. 3 resolution. You think it would be fair to retain to the Committee the right of objecting to an appointment then under the classified list?—l do. 11. With regard to No. 4, how would you pay for manual instruction in schools? Do you object to payment by capitation? —One plan suggested by the teachers was that payment might be made in very much the same way as payment is made for such things as lead pencils and slate pencils, by simply a grant to all schools. Manual instruction should be compulsory in all schools, and therefore the grant should be made in the way I have stated, because the grant would be required in all schools. 12. How is it possible to give manual instruction in all schools?—l cannot answer that question. 13. As a matter of fact, would it not be impossible in some schools? —Probably it would. 14. Would you recommend a system under which payment for manual instruction would be given in regard to those schools where instruction could be given?— The only system I could suggest just now is that the grant should be in proportion to either the roll-number or the average attendance of the particular school. 15. In regard to No. 6, could you explain how you would alter the instruction in agriculture from the present system defined under the syllabus?— That is simply a recommendation that instruction in agriculture should not be considered as intended to produce farmers, but as simply a part of the general instruction given to children, whatever their future in life may happen to be. 16. The Chairman.] In other Avoids, an elementary knowledge of agriculture?— Yes. Perhaps not quite so far as that even. Practically an elementary- training in applied science, which happened to be agriculture. 17. Mr. Pirani.] Then we come to 7a, in regard to arithmetic : How would you define the alterations you would recommend in that particular? What particular standards do you think are overloaded, and how would you distribute the alterations? —The teachers are unanimous on the point that Standards II and V are overloaded —Standard II in so far as they have to show a knowledge of the four money rules; and Standard V for various reasons, chiefly on account of the time occupied in the teaching of vulgar fractions. All the class teachers who have any experience of these different standards agree that in these two standards the work cannot be overtaken without devoting an undue amount of time to the subject. 18. With regard to No. 8, do the Institute mean that they would be in favour of abolishing all payments or awards to scholarship-holders except the lodging-allowance—that they would abolish even an allowance for the purchase of books or the payment of fees?—l do not think that we should go so far as to object to a money grant for the purchase of books. 19. And fees in secondary institutions where there were not free places?—ln respect to that, payment of the fees in such schools would be equivalent to granting a free place. We should have no objection to that. We simply mean that in the case of town children the granting of the free place or the free place and the cost of books ought to be sufficient considering the amount of money which would be available. 20. So that poor people in the towns would get no assistance at all except the free place according to your recommendation ?—That certainly was not intended. 21. Mr. Wells.] As to No. 2b, it is the opinion of the Institute that the compliance is not very speedy, that sometimes there is undue waiting? —That is so; a number of teachers have complained repeatedly that in the case of schools both in the towns and the rapidly growing country districts a request has been made to the Board for a new school or for the enlargement of a school. The Inspectors have reported that an addition is required, and the Board has sent a request to the Department, and the Department has made the grant required; but a very long time seems to elapse between the first overcrowding of the school and the providing of the new school or the addition. In some cases the delay has been so long as ten or twelve months. 22. With regard to the granting of additional assistance where a school is growing, does the Institute consider that the assistance is given quickly enough?— No. In all the cases I know of where there have been rapid increases there has been some complaint from teachers that the school is left for a considerable time understaffed. 23. Is it not a fact that the difficulty is largely increased by the fact that the increase may be made in one portion of the school, but if the total roll-number is divided by the number of teachers the increase is not so great, while in actual practice it is found to press very hardly on