Sir,—L am directed by the Committee of your memoranda on the subject of the of the S. P. S. to acknowledge the receipt New Curriculum, and to express the rexret which the Committee feels that your remarks, though written at very great length, and with the full consciousness that what the, Committee desired was suggestions as to such "modification of details" as might "enhance the efficiency of the scheme," are nevertheless so wide of the subject outlined in my letter as to alford to the Committee very little information of a practical or sung: character.
The extreme prolixity of your reply makes it almost impossible for the Committee to deal with it in extense, but with one or two points you raise "t may possible to deal briefly.
"Fon rau Broop 1s Taz Lrrx." Clarke's World-famed Blood Mixture is warranted to cleanse the blood from all impurities fror whatever cause arising.
For Scrofula, Bourvy, Eczema, Bad Legs, Skin and Blood Diseases, Pimples, and Sores of all kinds, its effects are marvellous. Thousands o wonderful cures have been effected by it. Bold everywhere at 20. 9d. Borsro of worthlges (mitetionsprinciple you emphasise in your letter I may reply that the Committee is not altogether ignorant of the extent.and limitation of its own powers, and is prepared to defend its action in the proper court when called upon.
As ards No. 7 of the "Rules passed at the Ratepayers' Meeting" I may say that the Commi mittee in deciding upon a new Curriculum is not necessarily interfering with the "Rules for working the School" which are to be drawn up "by the Headmaster under the approval of the Committee," and as a matter of fact it was with a view to lear ing how you proposed to work the School in connection with the New curriculum that your suggestions were invited.
may go farther and so: that the approval of the Commi mittee being necessary to the acceptance of such rules as the Headmaster might draw up, implies the right of the Committee to draw up its own rules in the event of those suggested being factory, and this is.on-firmed by the action of the late Committee in appointing a special Committee "to investigate and report fully on the pro-sent system of teaching, the curriculum and discipline of the SP. 8."
Your quotation from the printed report of the said special committee, whilst retaining the more waurable references to the School and its conduct, stops short at the paragraph which in-traduces the less favourable points and should continue: "On the other hand it is clear that ti hhere is abundant room for improvement," ud it is with this in mind the Committ has felt compelled to take steps towards in mproving the curriculum.
Scripture.
Your quotation from General. Remarks" (which, by the way, have nothing whatever t do with the Rules passed at th Ratepayers' Meeting Vas you assert) again stops short at the most important paragraph, viz., "it being the opinion of t he Committee," ete.
was arrived at at an ordinary of a former Com tee and hai nothin; to dow ith the Ratepayers' Meet ing referred to, which took place some six months previously.
The subject of the decision was " Religi ous instruction" not, What is now contempt you ated, "Script re; but even supposing the case, a decision of that such were former Committ ce is not necessarily binding on all succeeding Committees.
You are again mistaken in supposing that the term "Reli gious Knowledge" "covers the Cambridge Local ground," for "Religious Knowledge" includes the Doct pal teaching of the land (i.
Catechism and Church of Eng' the Book of Common Prayer) which is not contemplated by the Committee nor any other form of doctrine 1 teach in I must take exception to your statement that "the present staff without exception were engaged on a purely secular understanding, as the menibers of the staff were engaged en the sole under standing that they Jhould loyally serve ever branches he the Committee or she may from time to time be required to teach." necessary for me n T regret very much that it should be to write at such length to rebut sud very evident misconstructions of plain facts.
With regard to Cannon Farrar's Com mentary on St Luke, I may say that no such book as you describe has been stig gested. A 1s. edition of the 'Cambridce Bible for Schools is marked on the Syllabus and_at such a price it is ebrious that the book is not such proportions 3 even if were <0 it does as you describe not compare with 'Myers' "General History."
at present use in the School. which contains not proposed 71 pages. Besides it is hat any text book, other than the Bible itself, should be put in the hands of the scholars. but in the hands of the teacher ority.
ish. Yow seem, to entirely overlook the work of the lower forms which is of a sufficiently general character, and assume that the special work for the Cambridge Examination are the only subjects sung-sted as an Educa'ioual basis You have evidently given a very cursory glance at the outline I sent you.
(4) Grammar and Analysis, Euclid and Kindred subjects. It is unnecessary, to dwell further upon these, a3 the Committee has sufficient justification for considering their introduction would be advantageous to the School.
(5) Histors. On this subject you say ne History covers British ground and no more, perhaps only English, which has hitherto been confined to the lower forms, etc." This I fail to harmonise with the Syllabus with which you supplied me, according to which I find that in forms, TIL HU LY, Arnold Forster's © Thing New and Old" is used, so that practically no change is suggested, and the "General History" on which you lay such stress is confined to the Gth Form and the Ligh School (which consists of 2 boys); there is therefore practically one class which attacks a book of 720 pages and is supposed to gain a general knowledge of history by sodcing. It is not. wonderful, therefore, that independent examiners report that "the attempt was made to cram a good deal of information into the minds of the pupils but that but little of it was thoroughly di od.
(6) Geography, you is "Too agressively British." ' Perhaps you have overlooked the fact that the first year subject proposed is "Sea a the 2nd, Europe the 3rd, and S. America Great Britain."
The point of your remark ther: dingly difliente to discover.
(7) Science The Committee will not fail to provide what er is novessary. make the Scientific teaching thoroughly practical.
48) Mathematics. "Lhe course ly stiff," but, as it differs very little from the present range of subjects as mentioned on sour Syllabus, the objection cannot be urged; and here I may remark with regard to this and a great many other subjects, that they are, not evidently found beyond the capacity of boys and girls from all parts of the world from Mission Schools and Charitable Institutions, whose pupils figure well in the lists fof successful competitors. The Commnitteo fails to see why the children the S. P. S. should be so far behind Indian, Sinyhalese, and FE asian children, who are in 2 oases handicapped studying in a language not their own.
(9) French. Your remark that the course suggested is "for the time being quite beyond us" prompts the reply that, the present system requires attention and (10) Drawing. The: There is no suggestion to "substitute anything which might result in comparative failure."
(1) Mu-ie. "The teaching, of theortical music to ting children" is representation of the scheme proposed.
(12) Latin. I have already: remarked in'ms former Iwiter that, in the absence aay demand, the teaching of Tat' need not he enforced.
(13) Shorthand. The Committee dors not regard this subject as an educational factor and therefore decides that it should considered as an extra. to be undertaken either otttside of the regular hours, or on pavnient of an additional foes and thig decision is confirmed by the report the Special Connnittee, which suggests that shorthand should be omitted the regular Curriculum.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.