THE CASE OF THE OPPOSITION IN THE EDUCATION CONTROVERSY.
MT HEN Parliament meets next Thursday the Educa- tion controversy will return once more to the only effective platform of debate, and we sincerely hope and believe that the discussions in Parliament will produce an Education Act acceptable to all parties as a sincere attempt to solve the religious question without fear or favour, and an Act, moreover, that will give England at last an organised system of national education. It will be con- venient here, in view of the coming debates, to place before our readers the attitude towards the Bill of members of the various groups that constitute the Opposition in Parliament. It is extremely important that advocates of the Bill should realise the weakness and. strength of the Bill as it appears to the party in Opposition. Sir Henry Fowler, speaking at Wolverhampton on Satur- day last (October 4th), while admitting that "our present system of education was illogical, inefficient, and unjust," considered that it was not only " unfair " but "a violation of the fundamental principle of our Con- stitution" that "the entire cost of the education given was to be provided by public funds, and yet the public were to elect only one-third of the managers." He acknowledged that "it was not practical politics to assume that denominational schools could be destroyed. The denominational teaching should be preserved, and so long as the denominational schools existed the teaching of the denominations for which they were founded should con- tinue in those schools." A majority of elected. representa- tives could be trusted not to interfere with denominational teaching. The Bishop of Hereford in the Nineteenth Century for October presents "a plea, for mutual concessions." He regards the Bill as an instance of drifting back "into the close waters of Tory privilege," and states that the Nonconformist plea is that the Bill is an attempt to compel Dissenters "by new and reactionary legislation to pay rates and taxes for a school controlled by a Church from which they conscientiously dissent.' He suggests as a compromise that the managers of voluntary schools should consist of a body com- posed as to one-third of persons of the denomina- tion to which the school belongs, as to another third of persons elected by the local education authority, and as to the remaining third of persons appointed by the parish meeting or Parish Council. This body of managers are to have the right, "if they choose to exercise it," to require that candidates for the head-teachership shall belong to the denomination that owns the school ; and that the clergy or ministers of the denomination shall have free access to the school for purposes of religious instruction. Subject to these provisions, 'the necessary rules as to prayers, hymns, and general Biblical instruc- tion would be made by the Local Educational Authority." In the same number of the Nineteenth Century there is a symposium of opinion on the Bill. Mr. Haldane points out that "primary, secondary, and tertiary education have got to be reformed, co-ordinated, and adjusted into one organic whole salus populi suprema eat lex." He admits that "were the doing full justice to Nonconformity the only test to be applied to the propositions of the Bill, I should be against it." Yet "the religious question will adjust itself, but the economic question will not.
In the interests of the public, in the interests of the Nonconformists themselves, this Bill had better pass. Let it be improved, if this be possible, if the Government can better the terms of their bargain. But above all things, let it be passed." Mr. Sidney Webb says (and he represents the most sincere and ardent type of social reformer) :—" The Bill of 1902 begins a new era. For the first time we have education made a public function, simply as education, without definition or limit, and without restriction of age, or sex, or class, or subject, or grade The Bill of 1902, in short, marks an epoch in the history of public education in England no less important than that of 1870.
Never before has there been so bold, complete, and unfettered a placing of the educational destinies of the nation in the hands of its locally elected representa- tives." He adds that School Boards were not "the deliberate creation of any responsible statesman. Forster, as is well known, meant to make his educational authority a town council committee." Professor S. S. Laurie, who concurs "entirely with the Liberal and Nonconformist views of educational organisation," thinks that under the Bill "the close system of management is abolished, and air and light are let into the working of the schools." Canon Barnett (a tireless social reformer who certainly would do nothing to hurt the Nonconformist con- science) considers that " the talk about universal School Boards is not practical politics." The Bill offers, he says, "order instead of chaos equality of teaching in all elementary schools stronger local government Popular instead of sectional control of education The denominations as servants of the people The possibility of using experts on the local Authority or as managers." He therefore thinks that "the rejection of the Bill would be a national disaster."
Mr. Augustine Birrell in the Contemporary Review for October offers an ingenious contribution to the position. He feels that under the Bill it is a grievance that "time public authority cannot appoint or (except on special grounds) dismiss the teacher." "Another grave objection taken is that a religious test for teachers is established in schools which are in future to be wholly maintained out of public moneys. A Nonconformist teacher will not be able to practise his profession in one-half the Public Elementary Schools of the country." He admits that there are grievances on both sides "There are said to beamillion children in daily attendance at our Board Schools whose parents are Church folk Per contra, there are the children of Noncon- forming parents who in 7,500 or 8,000 parishes are bound by law to attend a Church of England. privately-managed school." Mr. Birrell will perhaps allow us to point out that these latter figures are misleading. There are only 5,600 Church schools, while 1,806 undenominationl single- school districts are a distinct grievance to all denomina- tions. Mr. Birrell proposes tint at regular intervals (say every three years) the wishes of parents as to the religious instruction of their children shouldi be ascertained, and their wishes met "by voluntary effort at appointed hours." With respect to the buildings, the managers should be separately asked,—" Will you fall in with this national scheme, or will you hold aloof from it ? " If they agree, they would be relieved for the most part from liability for the upkeep. If they answer in the negative, they "will continue to receive such Government grants as your efficiency may warrant. But not a penny more, either out of rates or taxes." If these " dissenting " schools prove inefficient, "new buildings will have to be erected at the public expense to provide accommodation for such children as will be found to need it." Dr. J. Guinness Rogers in the Empire Review for October likewise expresses his views, but rather upon the occasion than the Bill. He is vary angry with us for expressing our conscientious belief that School Boards have been grievously extravagant, and that among the opponents of the Bill are Nonconformists whose ultimate motive for opposition is not the religious question. In saying so we do not " sneer " at the opposition, but point out what appear to us to be regrettable facts. Such facts in no way blind us to the sincerity that now, as always, we believe, underlies the protests of Nonconformists in matters likely to affect the free exercise of their religious belief. In respect to the Bill, Dr. Rogers admits that "its design is admirable," but (unlike Mr. Sidney Webb) he fears the abolition of School Boards, and he declines to be disposed of by "mere parliamentary adroitness." "The denomi- national schools must cease to be voluntary when the State undertakes their entire support," and as to the school buildings, "the State is in justice bound to compensate for their use." When that is done, and the Bishop of Hereford's management scheme adopted, then the religious question can be dealt with.
At almost wearisome length we have endeavoured to set forth the Opposition ease from the mouths of the leaders of various aspects of thought among those who are opposed to the present Government. We must now briefly see how the matter stands. It will be observed that the opponents of the Bill really fall into two classes,—first, those who, like Sir Henry Fowler, Mr. Birrell, and the Bishop of Hereford, believe that the measure can be mended to meet certain injustices and to abolish certain principles alleged to be unconstitutional ; secondly, those who, like Dr. Guinness Rogers, believe that "even if the Bill pass, it will not work, while the attempt. to enforce it is certaiu to disturb the entire country." With respect to Sir Henry Fo7ler's position, we would point out with all deference that no violation of a Constitutional prin- ciple is involved by the restriction of the elective prin- ciple to one-third of the managers, since the control of all funds is absolutely vested in the elected local educational authority, who are in a position to check any wrong behaviour on the .part of the managers. Sir Henry strongly emphasised the fact that it was wrong in policy on the part of the Cliurch to insist upon a majority of managers. • That is another matter which requires very careful consideration, and to which we shall hope to return on a future occasion. The weakness of Dr. Percival's pro- posed concordat seems to be the fact that it would result in continual struggles in many districts as to the appoint- ment of the head-teacher. We hold that it is entirely desirable that the head-teacher should belong to the denomination to which the school belongs. This leads us to Mr. Birrell's chief grievance. He declares that the practical hardship of the position is that Nonconformist teachers will be excluded front the head-teachership of half the elementary schools. But even if this is so, the fact re- mains that all the undenoininatioual schools, and so all the prizes of the profession, are open to the Nonconformist teacher. There is nothing in the shape of absolute exclusion. Mr. Birrell's scheme in another respect seems to us unsound, since a religious inquiry every three years would be intoler- able, while to allow schools to stand aside from the national scheme would prove a burden of lead on national progress, and would hamper the country for years with even more inefficient schools than we now possess. The health of the nation, to quote Mr. Haldane, is the supreme consideration.
We must say one word with regard to Dr. Guinness Rogers and those who think with him. It is with the deepest regret that we have marked the uncompromising attitude that he now appears to have taken up. We feel with him that "one of the great difficulties in the whole controversy has been the inability of either section to understand the consciences of its opponents." For our own part, we have endeavoured, and shall always endeavour, to understand the Nonconformist conscience, though we decline to connect with that conscience many of the things said, threatened, and done in its name; and we deprecate the extreme violence of language that has been exhibited in certain sections of the Nonconformist Press and in a certain number of Nonconformist pulpits and platforms. On the other hand, we have endeavoured, and shall continue to endeavour, to understand the Church conscience, and to support the principle that those who founded denomina- tional schools have the right, unless the buildings are ex- propriated, to maintain the denominational character of those schools, provided always that there is concurrent State and local control of a kind commensurate to the financial help given. Believing, as we do, that this Bill offers a practical approximate solution of a social problem that is probably quite insoluble in theory, we can only regret that a section of Nonconformity should refuse with so much bitterness to accept this honest attempt to create an effective national system of education.
Previous page
