LETTERS TO THE EDITOR.
VOLUNTARY SCHOOLS AND BOARD-SCHOOLS. [TO THE EDITOR OF THE " SPECTATOR."] SIR,—I cannot think that the writer of the article in your issue of December 23rd, on the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Education question, realises the other side. Let me put the other side very briefly. Granted that the buildings of a voluntary school are good, the Government grant and the fee-grant taken together supply at least six-sevenths of the cost of maintenance. To go for the rates means that the ratepayer shall supply the seventh penny, and that when the whole of the maintenance expenses are supplied from public funds, private managers shall continue, in return for the buildings, to have the entire control of the school. The crux lies in the appointment of the teachers. The clergy who dissent from the rate policy, do not believe that the ratepayer will be content to pay unless he is directly represented on the management ; and they do not know why he should. They also believe that the supporters of voluntary schools are quite able to pay the seventh penny if they are willing, and if they are not willing to make this small sacrifice for the sake of training the little ones committed to them, in the principles of the Christian Faith, then it appears evident that they do not really set a high value on definite religious education. It is impossible to separate religious from secular education, and to assess the religious education at so much, and secular at so much. The teachers are paid for the whole education, and the whole ought to be in the best sense religious.' If Church- men gave half as much to Church schools as they spend on their amusements, there would be no lack of funds ; if they are not prepared for this small measure of self-sacrifice, universal Board-schools are inevitable ; but universal Board- schools, bad as that alternative would be, seem to me better than schools which would very soon be voluntary schools only
Previous page
