THE COST OF STATE AID IN EDUCATION.
THE change of Government brings the subject of voluntary schools into a position of more immediate prominence than it held when we wrote last week. In the long-run, we believe, it will have to be dealt with, no matter which party is in office. The gradual extinction of voluntary schools would be so serious a prospect from a financial point of view that any Government would be driven to do something to arrest the process. But the Conservative party are assumed to be the natural friends of the Church, and as the great majority of voluntary schools belong to the Church, they are assumed to be the natural friends of voluntary schools. On the other hand, if the existence of a Governmentwhich mainly relies i upon Conservative support, makes it probable that some legislation will be attempted in their favour, the language of Lord Salisbury the other day suggests a doubt whether even a Conservative Chancellor of the Exchequer will be inclined to open the national purse-strings sufficiently wide. The truth is, that a Minister finds it hard to believe that the fate predicted for voluntary schools, if nothing effectual is done on their behalf, can ever really overtake them. If he were once convinced that this result is only a question of time, he would be pro- perly impressed by the magnitude of the deficit that either the taxes or the rates would have to make good. In the absence of any such conviction, he is more im- pressed by the difficulty of making any large addition to the Education vote. Those, therefore, who would smooth the way for the fruitful discussion of the Archbishops' or any similar Bill, must be prepared to show that, without such a measure, voluntary schools cannot live, and we propose to mention one important consideration which points to this conclusion.
We do not deny that if the money which has hitherto been forthcoming for the maintenance of voluntary schools could be counted on in the future, the existing number might easily be preserved. And why, it will be asked, should we not count on it ? The liberality of Churchmen is not exhausted, and, as we have heard again and again, the urgency of the call upon it will not be lessened by the passing of the Archbishops' Bill. Why, then, cannot Churchmen be content with things as they are ? Why cannot they go on keeping their existing schools alive, and leaving to the State the duty of keeping abreast of the growing population ? The contributions of Church- men would then be a steady source of income, upon which the State might continue to draw. It is not as if this necessity would be ended by the passing of the Archbishops' Bill. If it were, Churchmen might be tempted to withhold their money in order to force the Government to give it a helping hand. But, unfortunately for this argument, we know that this would not be the case. If the Archbishops' Bill had been passed, there would be the same need for subscriptions in aid of voluntary schools that there is now. Why, then, should Churchmen be likely to discontinue them in the absence of such a measure ? It might be a sufficient answer to this question to say that, while men will give money when they know that the object they have in view will be attained, they will not give it when they know that the object they have in view will not be attained. The money which is subscribed each year for the support of voluntary schools might be adequate if it were met by an adequate contribution on the part of the community, and yet be wholly inadequate if it were not thus met. Consequently the fact that it has been subscribed at a time when the inadequacy of the present contribution from the community had not been realised, or when it was still hoped that it might be increased, affords no presumption that the subscriptions will continue when it is clearly understood that, in com- parison with the total sum wanted, they are but a, drop in the ocean. But there is a further answer than this. Churchmen have till now contributed to the provision of secular instruction in elementary schools in the belief that this is the most effectual way of making provision for the religious instruction of the children attending these schools. If they come to see that this plan only enables them to reach a small proportion of the children they wish to influence, they will naturally be led to inquire whether there is not a cheaper road to the same goal. So long, they will say, as Church schools embraced the greater part of the population, we did not mind paying for them. It will be a very different thing if in the future they are to embrace a continually decreasing minority of the population. Then we shall be driven to ask ourselves whether the object for which we provide the secular instruction, may not be better attained without attempting to provide secular in- struction at the same time. We much prefer keeping the two things in close association. Each benefits by combination with the other. But if we have to choose between giving re- ligious and secular instruction to a few children, and giving religious instruction only to many children, we shall choose the latter. It is the religious instruction that we really care for ; and we do not despair of devising some expedient by which the money that is now spent on the maintenance of elementary schools shall be diverted to the provision of religious instruction in other ways. We shall sell our school buildings, or divert them to purely religious uses, and leave the community to provide other buildings in place of them. When there is a School Board and a rate- supported school in every village, the community will realise how much needless expenditure it has brought upon itself by its short-sighted parsimony towards us. This, as it seems to us, is the line which Churchmen will be forced to take in view of the increasing competition of Board-schools, unless that competition is tempered by a more liberal attitude on the part of those who hold the public purse ; and if they do take it we have not the slightest doubt that their expectations will be fulfilled.
If we are right in thus thinking, Lord Salisbury's fear that no Chancellor of the Exchequer will care to sanction the required addition to the Education vote, will prove wholly unfounded. When it is explained to him that under the Archbishops' Bill Churchmen will be tempted to build schools wherever they are wanted, by the know- ledge that though the State determines what the secular instruction shall be, they themselves are free to determine what the religious instruction shall be, we shall have no fear for the result. As regards each separate school the contributions drawn from private sources may be trifling, but in the aggregate they will be large. It may seem a small thing that a fifth or a sixth of the cost of a particular school should be defrayed by private liberality. But when this is repeated in thousands of instances, the saving to the State becomes a large one. Nor is the economical by any means the only argument in favour of a greater liberality on the part of the community in the matter of voluntary schools. It is the argument most likely to weigh with the Treasury, but there is another consideration which ought to weigh with the Minister of Education. Under the present system there is a constant and inevitable tendency on the part of Churchmen to keep down the expendi- ture in Board-schools. It is in vain that educationists preach the folly of spoiling the ship for a pennyworth of tar. The Churchmen on School Boards know that the rivalry of Board-schools is dangerous in proportion to the excellence of the instruction given in them. They know that they cannot afford to let Board-schools get ahead of them in respect of the extent and thorough- ness of the school course, and they have consequently to choose between improving their own schools and keeping back the Board-schools. If they decide to improve their own schools, they must begin by paying their teachers better and buying more costly apparatus. But this needs money which usually is net theirs to give, and they are therefore compelled in many cases to keep back the Board- schools. This is the explanation of the divisions in School Boards which sometimes seem so puzzling from an educa- tional point of view. However strong may be the argu- ment in favour of raising the level of teaching in the schools of the Boards, it is not strong enough in the eyes of voluntaryists to outweigh the necessity it would impose upon them of incurring a similar outlay in their own schools. One of the most frequent causes of injudicious economy in elementary education would be removed if the Parliamentary grant were made to cover the salaries of the teachers. This is a second argument in favour of the Archbishops' Bill.
Previous page
