222

The examination in this branch was entirely by paper work, and consisted of a paper of questions on the rudiments only, and another requiring some acquaintance with the syntax.

In the first, Atack was the only candidate whose answers were completely satisfactory. He has evidently been well grounded in the early part of his grammar. Of the others, Macfarlane, Gibson, and Hartland were on a par; but they all made many mistakes in the cases and genders of nouns, and in giving the principal parts of verbs, even of the simplest forms. For instance, Atack only could give the perfect tense of "narro;" from the others I had such guesses as "narri," "narsi," "narrui," and "navi." With the single exception mentioned, the elementary knowledge of Latin evinced by the performances of the candidates for these scholarships must be pronounced very defective.

The answers to the questions in the second or more advanced paper displayed a still more noticeable inferiority. Atack, on the whole, answered fairly, but was unable to translate the easiest possible sentence. Gibson translated several sentences correctly, and showed far the most intelligence, but he omitted several questions and consequently marked lower than he otherwise would have done. All the others showed entire ignorance of anything beyond the barest rudiments. They failed completely in their attempts at translation, making such blunders as putting nominative cases after verbs and the like; and even when they gave a rule correctly, made it evident by their mistakes in the examples required, that they were merely repeating what they had learnt by rote, with no comprehension of its real meaning.

In Ancient History, the examination was viva voce. Reeves passed in a manner that did him the highest credit. His knowledge of history, both Greek and Roman, was surprisingly extensive and accurate. Atack also, though not equal to Reeves, answered exceedingly well. The others knew little or nothing. One of the candidates, who was as far advanced as the rest in Latin, was unable to give any particulars whatever as to the life or death of Julius Caesar, and supposed Alexander the Great to be a Roman general.

On the whole examination, as far as conducted by myself, I should place Atack and Gibson first in Latin; while in History, Reeves and Atack were not only far the best, but the only two of the candidates that can be said to have passed at all.

I have the honor to be, Sir,
Your very obedient servant,

J. V. COLBORNE VEEL.

To the Chairman of the Board of Education.

Avonside, Christchurch, July 11, 1867.

Sir,

In accordance with your request of the 5th inst., I beg to forward you some remarks on the examination for the higher Scholarships. I should have written before, but have spent some time in making enquiries as to the possibility of the three examiners making a joint Report, which I find is just now impracticable.

I examined the candidates on Thursday, June 27th. In the morning I set a paper on English History and Composition, allowing three hours and a half for the written answers to be produced. In the afternoon the paper was on Modern Geography, General Modern History, and Sacred History, and for this two hours and a half was the time allowed. Both morning and afternoon Reeves, Atack, and Stringer were writing up to the last minute granted them, while the rest had finished somewhat earlier. Reeves stands first on my list, having 72 marks out of a hundred possible; one of his papers was not finished through want of time. Atack is second on my list, but very close to Reeves, having obtained 71 marks. Stringer is third in my subjects, his total being 46; neither of his papers was finished, the work being too much for the time. Although Stringer’s marks fall so far below those of the other two, his work was singularly free from mistakes, clerical or material. Hartland deserves some credit as having done decidedly better than any other in English, writing from dictation, and his marks (43) approximate very closely to Stringer’s.

The knowledge of History displayed by Reeves is very remarkable considering his age; he gained 25 marks out of 28 possible in a by no means easy examination in English History. Atack follows him very closely in History. These two are beyond comparison superior to the other candidates in the subjects of my examination.

Guided by the experience of last year, I purposely set the standard of examination in English Composition very low, but even so the result is far from satisfactory. It is a fair matter of consideration whether tutors ought to give more attention to this branch of study, or whether it would be better for English Grammar to take the place of Composition in future examinations of boys under twelve.

The Scripture knowledge of all, except the three whom I have mentioned as occupying the best places in my list of marks, is very deficient. One of the candidates did not gain the smallest fraction of a mark in this department. Probably teachers are in the habit of assuming that such knowledge can be obtained by their pupils at home.

The candidates whose knowledge is most evenly distributed over the whole range of subjects for examination may be distinguished by reference to the table of marks already