ol, and
for the matter of that every private teacher, has a fixed plan of
instruction which is more or less rigidly enforced. In the case of the
school, as has already been stated, no attention whatever is paid to
individual requirements. All are subjected to exactly the same process,
for better or for worse. The child, therefore, as soon as it begins to
attend school is compelled to learn certain things.

The stock subjects are reading, writing, and arithmetic. They are
necessary accomplishments in all stations of life, and education without
them would be practically impossible. I do not disparage them in the
least. But there is a good deal to be said about the method of teaching
them, and the grave error of making them the principal objective of
elementary teaching.

In this connection it is both interesting and instructive to note a
significant alteration in the Day School Code issued by the Board of
Education. Until quite recently reading, writing, and arithmetic were
classed under the Code as 'obligatory subjects' in infant schools.
Article 15 of the Code now reads: 'The course of instruction in infant
schools and classes should, as a rule, include--Suitable instruction,
writing, and numbers,' etc. Compare this with the same passage contained
in former Codes. 'The subjects of instruction,' it runs, 'for which
grants may be made are the following: (a) OBLIGATORY SUBJECTS--Reading,
writing, arithmetic; hereinafter called "the elementary subjects,"' etc.

This amendment is a recognition of the fact that nothing can be more
detrimental to education than hard-and-fast rules. It is a protest
against the general assumption that the curricula of schools must be of
a more or less uniform pattern, and puts an end to the absurdity of the
central authority prescribing subjects to be taught in all elementary
schools, regardless of varying circumstances or the possibility of
improved methods of teaching.

Formerly the pernicious custom existed of examining the pupils, at the
annual visit of the inspector, in stereotyped subjects. Matthew Arnold,
reporting to the Education Department in 1867, observed: 'The mode of
teaching in the primary schools has certainly fallen off in
intelligence, spirit, and inventiveness during the four or five years
which have elapsed since my last report. It could not well be otherwise.
In a country where everyone is prone to rely too much on mechanical
processes, and too little on intelligence, a