tion by the suspector of Schools.
nach o
(1) As Mr Eitel had uninterrupted opportunities of observing each master in each class, between the hours of 9 A.M. and 1:30 P.M. daily from Thursday July 13th to Thursday July 27th inclusive, I suppose that he will be ready to admit that there is no necessity for her to repeat this most uncritical exercise. The masters will be the same next year, and probably for many years to come. I protest against a repetition of this experiment as derogatory to an excellent staff of masters, and through its uniqueness of application, as prejudicial to the reputation of the College. The natural inference drawn by the inhabitants of the Colony is that the only school subjected to this indignity must possess a very inferior staff of masters.
74
(2) I protest against different standards being expected to answer the same papers. On Saturday the 28th and Friday the 29th July, one set of the same papers was given to eight classes of three different standards.
(3) I protest against the setting of questions, none of which has any bearing on the work done by the class under examination, as recorded in the Time Table supplied to the suspector of Schools. The written questions set by Dr Eitel were, on the above dates, entirely on subjects apart from the work of any class examined. The late I. Stewart, whose experience entitles his opinion to great weight, wrote in C.R.O.847/87 Minute 8 "H.C.S. is of opinion, that if the school is examined 'on the basis of the work done, and "with a steady view to the aims of "the school, which aspires at being
"being
(2)