I WAS glad to see that “Science Master” had pointed out some of the difficulties in the way of applying the principles laid down in Prof. Armstrong's valuable paper in your number for November 6 (p. 19). The difficulties to which he has adverted relate mainly to those gratuitously thrown in the way of sound and useful practical teaching in grammar-schools by boards of examiners. Another difficulty I ventured to point out in the brief discussion upon Prof. Armstrong's paper at the Educational Conference of the International Health Exhibition, but it did not receive the attention which I think it deserved—partly, perhaps, owing to press of business, and partly, perhaps, also to the fact of the naturally somewhat strong representation of South Kensington interests at a conference held within the shadow of the Brompton Boilers. Prof. Armstrong appeared specially to recommend his mode of teaching “in science classes, such as those held under the auspices of the Science and Art Department,” and towards the end of his paper he seems to recognise only one difficulty in the way of introducing it generally, viz. it “undoubtedly involves more trouble to the teacher than that ordinarily followed,” and he appears to hint that the present method is mainly due to the incapacity of the teacher, as he says, “I do not believe that it is because the Department consider it” (the system) “a satisfac tory one; but they know full well that it would be unwise to legislate far in advance of the intelligence and powers of the majority of the teachers,” There are many teachers who are only too anxious to teach, not chemistry merely, but physics and other branches of science upon a sensible system, and who would willingly take considerable trouble to attain that end, but the difficulty is that, were they to do so, they would not get paid for their work. The insane system of payment by results is responsible for the greater part of the bad and indifferent teaching of science in this country, and the real trouble is, not that something better is in advance of the intelligence and powers of the majority of teachers, but that it is in advance of the intelligence and powers of the majority of examiners. The Department accept as their primary axiom that no teaching is to be paid for except that which can be exactly tested and appraised by certain examiners; and so no teaching, whatever its educational value, is counted worth anything by them except that which is susceptible of being weighed and measured. I took the liberty at the discussion of asking Prof. Armstrong whether he had ever taught a class on his methods, and if that class was presented to the Department for examination, and if so what was paid for it, and I made bold to express my own opinion that the result would be either nil or despicably small. My question received no answer, but I got plentifully snubbed—firstly, that a science teacher should even think of such a subject as remuneration, and secondly, I was informed that practical teaching always paid best. But as it appeared that my critics had misapprehended the point at issue, and were not speaking of the kind of teaching advocated by Prof. Armstrong at all, but thought that practical teaching meant allowing the class to see certain experiments performed by the teacher himself—a mode of teaching which I am quite agreed with the reader of the paper in considering quite unpractical—I did not feel satisfied that my question was answered, and with your permission will again propound it. It is not a sufficient answer to say that the most practical teachers earn the best results—I am a science teacher of quite sufficiently long experience to know that—provided it is strictly on the lines laid down by the Department. What I doubt is whether sensible practical teaching would produce any pecuniary results.