school is not only well taught, but that it is taught as well as those conducted by the teachers in the grade to which he aspires. Dr. Newell's opinion. Dr. Newell, in his general report for 1859, thus writes upon this point: 'I maintain that every teacher seeking promotion should not only possess the additional attainments required of teachers in the grade he aspires to, but he should prove that his school is as superior to the schools conducted by teachers in the class he is anxious to leave, as the class he seeks is more respectable and better paid than their class. The information a teacher possesses should be regarded chiefly as a means for making him a good instructor of youth. Let every teacher thoroughly understand that his school must be effective according to each step in the ladder of classification, and that this is the first condition of promotion.' 1 6. Junior classes. The character of a school depends very much upon the state in which these are found. The following extracts show the importance attached to them by inspectors of schools:-Mr. Moseley says: The instruction of the children who compose the junior division is more important than any other function of the school, and, if it be duly attended to, no other useful subject of the school will be neglected.' He says, in a note in the same page: 'I speak in this matter from experience. As inspector of the royal naval schools at Greenwich, I receive twice a year from those schools returns including the particulars referred to in the text. Very important results have followed from the attention which the masters have thus been induced to give to them. If asked to assign a cause which more than any other has contributed to the high standard of instruction attained in these schools, I should fix upon this.' Mr. Fletcher reports,2 'I am so convinced, indeed, that much of the indifference of the parent has the origin to which I allude (neglect of junior classes); that to do his duty by the "little ones" would be my advice to any young master desiring as soon as possible to fill his school, and then to keep it full.' Mr. Jones says: 3 The lower classes are starved intellectually and neglected in education. I find very few masters, even among those who have gained certificates, capable of teaching the lower classes; and, as a general rule, I am dissatisfied with the instruction given to them.' Mr. Bowstead says: 4 I must press upon the teachers the importance of bestowing upon the junior classes their full share of attention.' Mr. Sheridan says: 5 'In dealing with the junior classes, teachers 1 Min. of Council, 1846-7, vol. i. p. 156. 2 Ibid. 1846-7, vol. ii. p. 66. 3 Ibid. 1854, p. 601. 4 Ibid. 1854, p. 632. 5 Report of Commissioners of National Education in Ireland, 1858. Mr. Sheridan's Report. JUNIOR CLASSES-WHY NEGLECTED. . 267 should always bear in mind, (1) that the majority of the pupils in the junior division are quite old enough for the middle division -some, indeed, even for the senior—and, consequently, that the great object of the teacher should be to qualify them for advancement out of the junior division as soon as possible. (2) That owing to their inability to read intelligently, children are quite unable to help themselves, as long as they are detained in the junior division; that whatever progress they make in the first and second classes must necessarily be made under the immediate instruction of the teacher or of some one deputed by him; and, consequently, that it is not only an utter waste of time, but something worse, to assign tasks to be learned by such children at home, or to place them at desks by themselves "to prepare lessons." (3) That the reading, spelling, counting, and some expertness in adding numbers mentally, are all that is really necessary to qualify children for advancement out of the junior division, and consequently, that these should engage the teacher's principal attention.' Dr. Newell says: 1 'An element of success will be found in teaching effectively the junior classes, whose progress is generally so low. To this point the attention of managers and inspectors should be constantly directed. The senior classes are more showy, and with most persons are thought of more importance than the junior; but here, as in many other instances, the humblest work is the most essential. The aim of the teacher should be to have all his classes properly prepared, but especially the junior classes which constitute the majority.' I could give numerous other extracts, but as the space will not allow, I can only refer the reader to the books in which they may be seen. See note.2 Why the junior classes are the most neglected. Although these classes are the most important, they are by no means the most carefully attended to. It is generally up-hill work teaching young children, and in comparison with teaching the senior classes, much duller and more distressing, and hence teachers devote their principal time to the grown and advanced boys. They either teach the small children carelessly themselves, or wholly abandon them to monitors or assistants. It is no doubt very natural to wish to spend most of one's labours upon those who can best appreciate them, but teachers should enter upon their duties with 1 Report of Commissioners of National Education in Ireland, 1855. Dr. Newell's Report. 2 Ibid. for the years 1856 to 1861 inclusive. Also Min. of Council, 1846-7, vol. i. p. 408; 1846-7, vol. ii. pp. 55 and 65; 1851, p. 387; 1852-3, pp. 377 and 625; 1854-5, pp. 415, 601, 623, 632; 1857-8, p. 586; 185960, p. 154; 1860-1, pp. 19, 85, 102, and 209. Report of Education Commissioners, 1861, vol. i. p. 154; and vol. ii. pp. 92 and 226. higher motives than the comparative pleasure they receive. They should take a conscientious view of the vast importance of what they have undertaken to perform, and always determine to do not what is most pleasing or most natural, but what is most correct. The junior classes form the vast majority of their charge, and, even for this reason alone, they ought to receive the greater portion of their time, as it is in them that the seeds of good or bad habits are sown; in them it is determined whether the children will progress rapidly, slowly, or not at all; whether they will leave school intelligent and educated, or ignorant and disgusted with learning, and therefore it is in them that the teachers must work. Senior cannot be neglected. The senior classes should by no means be neglected; they should receive, however, only that portion of the master's time to which they are fully entitled. It is found, indeed, in practice, that the interests of the low classes never clash with those of the upper. Where the junior are well taught, all are well; when the junior are neglected, the senior classes, though chiefly attended to, are wanting in exactness and depth; for from the badness of the foundation the entire superstructure partakes of weakness. TIME TABLES. 7. I have already shown how the several subjects ought to be taught to each class-to the junior as to the senior: it remains for me now but to say a few words upon the organisation of the school, as much of the value of the results depends mainly upon this point. Under this head I propose to treat chiefly of the 'time table' of the schools-the document which sets forth the routine of teaching pursued. Every one who knows anything of this subject will admit that the formation of a time table is one of the most difficult portions of the teacher's duty; and that a good one is rarely found. When we consider the variety of subjects taught, we can easily understand the extreme difficulty attending any arrangement of them that would be deemed correct, and any allotment of time to each that would be adequate and suitable. Dr. Newell, in his report for 1859, says that upon examination it will be found that eighty out of every hundred are badly and injudiciously constructed; I shall go further, and say that, out of the hundred, ninety and nine are more or less defective. What a time table is. A time table is a written statement of the business actually done in the school, in the order in which it is done, and with the time devoted to each separate portion of it. It is nothing more, and when it records this duty it is, as a time table, TIME TABLE NO. 1. 269 perfectly correct. The system of teaching and organisation may be very bad, and yet the time table which records this may be above censure; and when I say that the documents actually met with are unsatisfactory, I am regarding them solely in accordance with what I have defined them to be. They do not contain in writing the business of each class. The verbal statement of the master, of what he does, almost invariably differs from his written statement as found on the time table. Examples. I can best illustrate what I mean by time tables, which I found in use in schools under my charge. This is a copy of the time table found in the school of a teacher in the service of the Board since 1833. It may be considered in two ways, either as a written statement of what is actually done, or as to the system of teaching which it represents. If we take the second view, we find: (1) That the children of first and second classes idle (under the name of preparing lessons) for 1 hour daily. (2) That 'lesson books and tasks' occupy two hours. (3) That writing, mental addition, and requirements of programme (whatever that may mean), occupy thirty minutes each. (4) That there is no lesson on grammar, geography, or slate arithmetic, during the whole day to the junior division. And (5) that nothing is learned in second class from 12 to 12 o'clock. If this had been in reality the system in force in this school, the teacher would have been grossly violating his duty; but upon questioning him I found, as I have found in the vast majority of cases, that the sheet which purported to be a time table was no time table at all. The way in which he actually discharged the duties of the day was as follows: As each child came in, he went to the master to say his tasks, or if a boy was saying his tasks at the time, he went to the desk and waited for his turn. After saying them, he went to the desk again, and, under the name of preparing lessons, idled until all the home lessons were over. During this time the junior classes, which had prepared no home lessons, idled also with their reading books open on the desks before them. The fourth class was then called up to a reading lesson, then the third, sequel, second, first, in succession; and as each finished to make room for its successor, the children went to the desks either to prepare lessons' or to write. This brought the business of the day up to 112 o'clock. How very different this is from what was written upon the time table! Suppose that the 'home lessons' had been heard in classes (his method of hearing them individually renders any time table impossible), the business of the school for the first hour, as taken down from his own lips, might be tabulated somewhat as follows: Time 1st Class 2nd Class Sequel Third 10.0 to 10.10 Preparing Preparing Preparing Preparing Lessons Lessons Lessons Lessons Fourth Tasks We thus see that the senior classes were engaged at what is called 'preparing lessons' for forty minutes out of the hour, and that this duty was not at all mentioned on the time table, though consuming two-thirds of the time. It is therefore very evident indeed, that this document was not a written statement of what was done during the day, and therefore no time table. It not only omitted what the children actually did do, in the shape of preparing lessons, but it deliberately stated what was untrue, for it represented the sequel class children, for instance, as at 'reading lessons and tasks' for forty minutes, whereas in reality they were only engaged at the two for twenty minutes. The master explained that he did not intend the time, as entered in the left-hand column, to refer to each class, but only to each division; he merely wished to state that inside the hour each child |