от
8
In continuation of my
え
mericle of-31/7/47
12
of an making of at Now
18/2/47 =
The Non-African Sub-Committee of the
A.C.E.C. have considered the replies of the Director
X
of Education, Hong Kong, at (9) ̊and wish to make these further observations:-
Part I, Section 19. Whilst they appreciate the difficulties mentioned by the Director of Education in (b), (c) and (a), the Sub-Committee would point out that similar conditions are experienced in England. Teachers of handicrafts and other specialist teachers in grammar schools in England are in a similar position to the Chinese teachers mentioned in (b).
With reference to (a), the Sub-Committee would suggest that if pupils were encouraged to read and discuss a little more and to write a little less, there would not only be a reduction in the time spent in correcting written work, but there would be an improvement in the standard of their English.
Section 20. The Sub-Committee hope that amendment of the syllabus in order to widen the scope of the School Certificate examination will be made as early as possible. They will be interested to receive a further report when it has been possible to judge the effect of the amendments.
X
Lihousan
18. 9. 47.
Miss Whyte.
As the Treasury have in (14) approved the Grant Code in principle, I do not think that it will be necessary to take up with Mr. Rowell the small errors noted by you, especially when it appears likely from the final paragraph of his letter at (12) that we shall be faced very shortly with a new Subsidy Code and fresh commitments!
As you will see from (13), I have asked for an official interpretation of the rather confused wording of paragraph 4(b) and (c) of the Burnham Committee's Report attached to (12). The previous ruling that the maximum number of increments was three had been given to me over the telephone.
In the meantime replies to the various points raised by the Treasury in (14) will have to be considered:-
(a) I agree with the Treasury that if the word "maximum" had been inserted before "salary" in the remarks column the position would be clearer, though it would not remove the possibility of an assistant of long service drawing a higher salary than a newly appointed head teacher.
(6) I raised this point in paragraph 3 of my letter of 29th March, 1946, to Mr. Rowell (6). His reply would indicate that this sex differentiation is contemplated in the revised Section 10 of the Code. but whether this Section has actually been revised is not clear.
If not,
(c) I presume that you have these particulars in the Hong Kong current estimates. Mr. Walton, who is on leave, might be able to supply
/the