Sessional_Paper_1908 — Page 445

347

History.--Good except in Standard V where the work was poor. Dates were well known on the whole.

Arithmetic-Very weak indeed. Standard V broke down completely on a paper originally set for Standard IV, and in a very easy paper Standard IV only did fairly well. This subject will have to be taken seriously in hand as it is distinctly below the average.

Hygiene.-This subject shows a falling off both as regards the advanced and the elementary courses.

Needlework.-- Good.

Grant. I recommend a grant at rate of 30/-. The grammar and arithmetic especially will have to improve if the school is to maintain its present position on the grant list.

No. 8.-Diocesan School, Boys.

Staff-Headmaster, G. PIERCY, S Assistant European Masters and Mistresses and 2 Chinese Masters.

Discipline and Organization.-Good. The work of the school continues to be very efficient on the whole but more attention will have to be paid to Arithmetic and Grammar in certain classes and Chinese throughout.

Sanitation.- Very satisfactory.

Apparatus.-Very satisfactory.

Floor Space.-Sufficient for 470 pupils.

English.---Colloquial.—This subject is distinctly good in the upper standards but I and

II are weak.

Reading. Good throughout.

Writing.-All papers shown up were neat and showed that this subject had

received attention.

Composition.-Very good in Standard VII. The subject matter was well thought out and the essays were written in good style, but the first person and such terms as firstly, secondly should be avoided in an essay. In Standards VI and V there were numerous grammatical errors and mistakes in spelling which brought down the standard of the essays. Standard reproduced a story which only 2 boys failed to understand. The 4 lower standards were fair. Their chief weaknesses were mistakes in grammar.

Dictation. In the lower standards was good.

Grammar.-Good on the whole. The parsing in Standard IV was poor.

Standard VII was distinctly good.

Geography.Good. The papers were neat. Standard VI might have done better as he paper was very easy. The work in III and II is rather too general being chiefly tonfined to definitions. II offered very little for examination.

History-Standard VII did very well indeed. Their work was well above the usual school standard and showed careful teaching. In this connection the paper shown up by Chiu Yau Tsz deserves special mention. Standard VI very fair. Standard V good.