4. The argument founded on the equality of all subjects of instruction, is in reality an argument that affects the curriculum of a school, and not the relation of masters to each other. The position of different studies in a school is determined by a variety of causes. A subject is valued or not according to its place in the school course; according to the time assigned to it; to its value in examinations; to the share given to it in deciding prizes; and by the fact that inattention to it is or is not visited by punishment. All these causes go to determine the value of the different studies. The fact that the head master teaches one branch in particular has comparatively little to do with it. But it is by no means an established truth that equality of all subjects of instruction is a good thing for any school. The monopoly of one subject, coupled with the neglect of all others, is one thing; but the preponderance of one subject with fair play to all others, is a different thing. What is really wanted is a balanced curriculum, with or without optional classes at a higher rate, giving fair play to all branches, and not too much or too little to any. This argument therefore is met by a denial of the fact.

The true theory of school management in all schools of any importance is, we believe, a head master appointed by the managers or directors, but untrammeled by them. Freedom from interference is an important element in this theory. Nothing is so dispiriting to a man whose heart is in his work, as the petty annoyances, ignorant obstructions, and little interferences of those who may be in a position of authority over him; but who, having no interest in the work themselves, take a sort of jealous pleasure in asserting their authority, and in finding fault with their subordinates who do their duty. A managing body of this stamp would seriously damage the best school. A head master should be protected from all interference of this kind. He should be subject to dismissal on short notice by them, so that the school may not be burdened with an incompetent head; but, in other respects, he should be independent of his managers. He should be supreme over all the teachers, even to their appointment and dismissal, and they might assist him as a school council with a consultative, but not a legislative voice. He should be paid at a much higher rate than the other teachers, and should, both by position and character, be a man to whom the other teachers can look up and respect. Lastly, he should have entire control over the internal economy of the school, and be held responsible for the success of it.

This view is corroborated by observation and by experience. Professor Shairp, who before he became connected with the University of St. Andrews, was ten years in one of the best schools of England, writes in reference to the organization of Madras College :

In order to carry out this system it would be absolutely necessary that a head master with very full powers should be appointed to preside over the whole institution. He ought to be a man not only of strong natural ability and great energy, but of large and varied attainments, knowledge of men, and power of management.

While the more advanced boys in classics should be specially taught by him, it ought to be his duty to superintend and examine every class throughout the school. In order to secure such a man, a much larger salary would have to be offered than Scotchmen have ever thought of giving to their head masters. The master to fill this post would of course be chosen by the trustees. But when chosen, and found adequate to the post, he ought to be left as much as possible to carry out the system of the school in his own way, and according to his own judgment. From what I have known of the best schools in England, I am convinced that their success is generally in exact proportion to the freedom which the trustees allow to the head master. At Rugby, which is generally reckoned the most efficient school in England, the trustees, taught by experience, have long confided their attention entirely to the election of the head master, and to the auditing the accounts which he annually lays before them. It will be long, I fear, before our countrymen will acquiesce in this policy of non-interference; but I am deeply convinced that just in proportion as they approach to it will their schools rise in real efficiency.

After they have learned to have confidence in their head master, the more they are guided in their selection of under masters by his advice the better. Best of all, perhaps, to leave the choice of assistant masters entirely to him.

As to the Madras, it is clear, from the nature of things, that it must suffer from the present divided rule. Each master will naturally try to promote his own branch, without considering the others, the more so in proportion to his zeal for his own subject. In so complicated a system, one wide and impartial survey of the superintending eye, to arrange and subordinate the several departments, with a view to one total end is especially needful.

Besides the intellectual organization, an incalculable moral advantage to a school arises from the supremacy of one controlling mind. If the head master, besides being an able scholar, is also a man of high character, his influence reaches every boy within the school, and does more to educate him than any thing else can do.

These remarks I offer without the least personal allusion, but entirely from a comparison of the Madras system with the most perfectly modeled schools which I have known.

In like manner Professor Sellar, of the University of Edinburgh, in answer to the question as to the relation of the masters to each other, says as follows:

There should, I think, be a staff of masters acting under one head master or rector. For the success of a school, it is of the greatest importance that all the masters should feel that they are engaged in a common work, and that all should take a pride in the general success of the school. This common action and common interest in the school can be best secured by the masters working under one head. Where all are independent of, and on an equality with, each other, each is only interested in advancing his own subject, the success of which may appear to him to be best promoted by the depreciation of every other subject. Jealousies among the masters are sure to arise, when all are contending for popularity against one another; and, further, the education acquired by attending a number of classes standing in no relation to one another is much inferior to that of a well ordered school, where all the subjects are taught in subordination to one common end.

Professor Blackie, of the same university, writes:

I would give more power to the rector than is customary in some Scottish Burgh schools; and I would restrict the power of the managing body as much as possible to matters of occasional legislation. Their habitual interference is pernicious.

On the other hand, Dr. Donaldson, rector of the Edinburgh High School, appears to be in favor of the more limited exercise of the head master's authority. He would keep the management of the Burgh schools in the

hands of the Town-Councils; he would have all the teachers elected by these bodies; he would encourage the Town-Councils or their committees to regulate all matters concerning the school; "and it should be the rector's right and business to see that all regulations of the committee of management are honestly carried out. Dr. Donaldson's views are worthy of all respect, and can not fail to carry authority from his long experience as a teacher in Town-Council managed schools.

CLASSES.

The classes in the Secondary Schools are arranged on three different principles.

1. In a majority of the schools there is no settled curriculum or course. Each school is a congeries of classes under different masters, without any definite aim to which all are striving, and without any harmony of action among the teachers. Departments even, in many instances, are not kept distinct, but the subjects which, under any natural allocation, should be taught in one department, are taught in another. Book-keeping for instance, is taught, in some schools at a high fee, by the mathematical master, while the writing master teaches arithmetic. Geography, also at a high fee, is taught in one school by the classical master, in one by the English master, in one by the mathematical master. In some large schools again, will be found a writing, a commercial, and a mathematical department striving against each other, all teaching the same branches on different principles, and all at different fees. Education is sold in these schools like wares in a shop, at so much per pound, and the idea of the seller is to sell as many pounds as he can for his own immediate benefit. There is a nominal partnership existing, inasmuch as all the teachers are appointed by the same managing board, and teach in the same building. But all the partners are struggling against each other, thinking only of themselves, and caring for the good neither of the firm nor the trade. More than that, in some schools the partners insist upon a monopoly for themselves. In one school, for instance, there was an excellent scholar and a highly cultivated man at the head of the classical department. He, in his course of instruction, desired his scholars to write for him a weekly English essay on classical subjects. The English teacher in this school objected to the classical teacher setting an English essay in his class, as by so doing he poached upon his monopoly of English. The one argument in favor of this unhealthy rivalry-because it can not be dignified by a higher name-is that it prevents indolence and stagnation on the part of the teachers, and produces vigor and animation and zeal in their respective departments.

2. In some schools there is a curriculum, or at least a prescribed course, but it is not imperative. There are also optional classes at a rather higher rate of fees than the curriculum, and scholars may select either the curriculum or the optional classes. As instances of the working of this system, we would refer to the special reports upon the High

School of Edinburgh, the Inverness Academy, and the Edinburgh Institution. This method of arrangement appears to us to be greatly preferable to the method mentioned above. In country towns such as Inverness, where there can be no great variety of first-rate schools adapted to special subjects such an arrangement is probably the best that could he suggested. The fees are paid into a common fund, so that none of the disadvantages of pecuniary rivalry are produced. The aim of all the masters is the success of the Institution, so that there is no heartburning on the part of one master at the popularity of another. There is no compulsion put upon the parents to send their children to classes which they consider useless, but, at the same time, all the advantages of a judiciously arranged course of study, drawn up by men conversant with education, are offered to them at a lower rate than they would have to pay for selected classes. That the good effects of this system are appreciated, is proved by the fact that, in the three schools which we have instanced, more than two-thirds of the scholars take the course in preference to the selected classes.

An arrangement somewhat similar to the above is brought about by a system which is in force at Dollar Institution, and at one or two other schools, in accordance with which a "basis fee" is charged for the course, and every one who attends the school has to pay the fee whether he attends one class or all. By this means there is not much chance of a desultory attendance at a class here, and a class there, and there is a kind of method of arrangement throughout the school.

3. The third principle of arrangement is of two kinds. (1.) There is one prescribed, invariable and imperative curriculum which is enforced upon every boy in the school, and in every department at the same time. (2.) The whole school is divided into three or more sets of classes, one for each department, and every boy is promoted from class to class in the several subjects, not by routine, but according to his proficiency in each subject, uninfluenced by his proficiency in any other.

In the first case, there is no option left to parents or to teachers. The school is divided into a certain number of classes, and each class goes up from year to year in every department. The first class in classics is the first class in English, and the first class in modern languages, and the first class in every subject, and this class becomes the second class in these several branches next year, and the third class in the third year, and so on. There is no question of fitness on the part of individual scholars for one subject rather than another. It is taken for granted that all are equally advanced in all subjects, and they are promoted by seniority and not by proficiency, by routine and not by merit. The Edinburgh Academy is the best instance of this system. In considering the advantages and disadvantages of it, two distinct questions are raised -Is it desirable that the under masters should be upon a footing of equality, and should teach the whole curriculum from the lowest subjects to the highest, or should there be a gradation of rank among the masters,

and should each be confined to that province to which he is adapted? Is it desirable that boys should be promoted in all departments by routine, or by proficiency? The first of these questions affects the teachers more than the scholars, and something can be said on both sides of it. By having different work to do each year, a man is more likely to keep up his interest in his profession, and to stave off a tendency to mental stagnation. He is more likely also to be promoted to a higher calling if he has been accustomed to teach in the highest classes in the school. It may be also that he gets to know the boys, and understands how to make the most of them. On the other hand, some men are much better qualified for junior than for senior work, and vice versa. Higher classics and advanced composition may be very indifferently taught by men who would teach the elements of a language thoroughly. And men whose interests are in the higher paths of scholarship, and who could do much to awaken a boy's mind to an appreciation of the niceties of language, or to the comprehension of classical ideas, would very probably find elementary scholarship excessive drudgery, and would teach it indifferently. Elementary teaching and higher teaching are distinct arts; just as laying the foundations of a building is distinct from raising it architecturally; and one man may be good in the one department, but poor in the other. In English public schools it is usual for teachers to serve an apprenticeship in the lower classes of the school before they are promoted to the higher, and in the years of their apprenticeship their capacity for one department or another is discovered. In the class of Scottish schools to which we are now referring, there is no promotion in the school, and no apprenticeship; a teacher is at once appointed to the vacant class, whether it be the highest or the lowest, and he knows he can not improve his position in the school, but looks for promotion from without. The result of this is apt to be one of two things-the master appointed either settles down for life in his position as under master with his regular routine of classes, and his regular routine of four or five years' work, or, if he is not content to settle down, he must look abroad for his future advancement. And this has a tendency to diminish his interest in the school, and to cause the best men to leave frequently, and the indifferent to remain permanently. On this subject opinion is divided, but the preponderance appears to be favorable to the English system.

As to the other branch of the general question, promotion by routine, or proficiency, the universal custom in Scotland is to promote by seniority. The same class of boys go up year by year, according to their age and time at school, though the difference in their attainments be as wide as is possible to find in boys of the same age. Of the evil effects of such a system it is impossible to say too much. Indeed there is nothing reasonable to say in favor of it, except that it is cheap and simple, that it spares the feelings of the duller boys, and through them of their parents, But the result is inevitable-either the clever boys are