EDUCATIONAL PEACE.
WHETHER the terms of peace proposed by the Educational Settlement Committee will receive sufficient approval and support to enable them to be carried into practice remains to be seen. But even if they do not succeed so completely as this, a great deal may be, and we believe will be, accomplished by their publication. If they do not prove the final terms of peace, and thus immediately provide a national settlement of the question, they may at any rate become a stepping-stone towards peace. Without pledging ourselves to all the details of the proposal, and reserving the fullest rights of criticism in the light of the further discussion of the Report which is sure to take place, we desire to say that, in our opinion, the Com- mittee approached the subject in exactly the right spirit. In the principles which underlie their scheme we not only find nothing to object to ; on the contrary, we regard them with the strongest approval. Though we might in certain cases have preferred a different application of those principles, our objections are objections of degree, not of kind.
The first principle adopted by the Committee is the principle without which any scheme of national educa- tion must stand condemned. That principle is that it is the business of the State to concern itself with religious teaching, and that religious teaching must be retained as an integral part of national education. To our mind, we should be paving the road to national ruin were we to adopt the monstrous notion that the State ought to say in regard to education :—" It is the business of the State to consider and deal with the essentials of the training of the young, that is, with such vital matters as reading, writing, and arithmetic, and the endowment of the child with the power of thinking accurately and express- ing himself plainly. While that is being accomplished we have no objection to allowing the religious fanatics to play with the children's minds out of school hours, but it must be clearly understood that this mild nonsense has no part in the true work of education." No doubt this materialistic view reads like a wild parody, and no doubt only a very inconsiderable number of men would whole-hoartedly adopt it. Yet, strange as it may seem, the fierceness of sectarian controversy has well-nigh forced the State into taking up a position equivalent to that which we have just described. In truth, the State's only legitimate ground for interfering with education is that it is its business to see that the children are being trained to . be good citizens. But you can only make them good 11iitizens by building up character, and you cannot build up character without some form of religion. When we say that the State must see that the children whom it under- takes to teach shall receive religious instruction, we use that term in the widest possible sense. We do not wish to dictate the form of religious instruction, or to put the slightest strain on tender consciences. All we demand is that the State shall not, as we have said, take the view that it is only concerned with things material, and that on the religious side of life it is to be deaf and blind. In the proposals of the Educational Settlement Committee the duty of the State is properly recognised, but yet recognised with sufficient elasticity to produce no un- fairness. Under their scheme religion will keep its place in the Council schools, while, on the other baud, the alternative schools—that is, Provided or Denominational schools—will continue to exist in areas where a choice of schools is possible. At the same time, in Council schools the withdrawal of children to receive religious or moral instruction outside the school buildings during the period allotted by the education authority to religious teaching will be permitted. The crux of the scheme is to be found in the pro- posal that all schools in single-school areas, or, to put it bluntly, all rural Church schools, are to be handed. over to the local authority and to become Council schools. At first sight this looks like a tremendous blow at the Church schools, and at that voluntary system of education for which English Churchmen have made such notable sacrifices in the past and are making no small sacrifice at the present time. When we look a little closer at the scheme, however, it will be seen that what is actually proposed will not in fact involve forfeiture of the special type of religious education which has been provided in the Church of England country schools. Special religious instruction in accordance with the previous practice of the school will be allowed to be given, in schools hereafter transferred to the public authority, to those children whose parents desire it, pro- vided that it is done without expense to the public funds. In other words, Church schools in single-school areas when they are transferred to the local authority will be earmarked, and if the parents wish it, and the Church authorities of the parish are ready and willing, religious education of the same type as before will continue to be given through voluntary effort in them. In reality, there- fore, though the single schools will cease to be Church schools, they will not cease to be schools in which a special and Church type of religious education will be provided.
The substance of Church of England. religious in- struction will remain for the children of Church of England parents, but the Nonconformist grievance will be met by the school ceasing to be in name, or, if you will, in fact, a Church school as far as the ordinary education and its official status are concerned. As a Nonconformist might• well put it, they will obtain peace with honour. At the same time, Churchmen will feel that they have not sacrificed the essential rights and interests of those parents who desire that their children should receive the particular type of religious instruction now provided in Church of England schools. As at present advised, and unless some very strong arguments against it can be adduced, this appears to us a reasonable settle- ment. To make it sound and lasting, however, it must be accepted by Church-people generally. It is not a proposal which can be wisely or justly forced upon the Church of England. (Needless to say, when we use the phrase " Church of England " we do not mean merely the clergy, but quite as much the laity, of the National Church.) If it should appear that the majority of those who control the Church schools in single-school areas would refuse the compromise, and that therefore new Council schools would have to be provided in practically every rural parish in the country, the plan of the Committee could not be carried through. Not only would the consequent moral disturbance be too great, but the vast expenditure involved would, in our opinion, absolutely preclude its adoption. No scheme which would result in the expen- diture of millions more money on education is possible. For ourselves, we hope and believe that when the scheme is properly understood there will not be a general movement against the proposal for dealing with single-school areas. We feel bound, however, to enter the caveat which we have entered in this respect.
We must not forget to mention that the scheme of the Educational Settlement Committee further permits voluntary arrangements to be made by outside organisations for religious instruction within school hours and inside Council schools in those areas in which the local authority may decide not to provide religious instruction itself. This we take to mean that in the rare cases—we expect them to be very rare—where the local authority abandons the duty of providing religious instruction it will give a general right of entry to the various Churches. In these cases the local authority will be under a statutory obliga- tion to appoint a Religious Instruction Committee, which may include persons not members of the authority, and must include persons experienced in the religious instruction of children. The duty of this Committee will be to further the provision of instruction in the Bible, in the principles of the Christian religion, and in personal and civic duty. In the case of schools attended by Jewish children, the arrangements made under the existing law are to be continued.
Before we leave this part of our subject it may be well to quote verbatim from the Report the Committee's statement of the aims of their proposals. They are to secure :— "1. A national system of educational organization under public control.
2. Religious teaching as an integral part of school life (subject always to the right of withdrawal under the Conscience clause), and adequate opportunities for such teaching in all schools and Training Colleges under public control.
3. Administrative arrangements favourable to sincerity and reality in such religious teaching, with full respect for various forms of conscientious belief among parents and teachers alike.
4. The removal of the grievances which exist in areas in which there can be no effective choice of schools.
5. The recognition (where the parents so desire) of denomina- tional schools or other alternative schools in districts where an effective choice of schools can be given.
-6. Avoidance, so far as is compatible with the above objects, of religious division within the school?'
We desire to say a word or two in regard to the giving of denominational teaching in schools hereafter transferred to the local education authority, and also in regard to Training Colleges. We quote from the summary of their proposals sent out by the Committee :- "It is proposed that in future head teachers (other than exist- ing head teachers) should not be eligible to give this instruction, in view of the administrative responsibilities of their office and the importance of avoiding any appearance of partiality in the conduct of the school. Assistant tesehers are to be left free either to give or not to give such instruction, in accordance with their own desire, but the local authority is to have the discretion of deciding whether in a particular school or district other arrange- ments, must be made, in order to avoid the risk of provoking religious controversy. With reference to Training Colleges, opportunities are claimed for all students to qualify themselves, if they so desire, by study and training, for the work of giving religious instruction. Also it is asked on educational grounds that there should be variety of type among Training Colleges, some being denominational, others non-denominational."
The summary concludes with the following statement :- "In conclusion, it is claimed for the Committee's plan that in all parts of the country elementary schools under public manage- ment would form the groundwork of the national system of education ; while no child would be compelled to attend a school under denominational control against its parents' wishes. At the same time, in urban and in many non-urban areas the population would be large enough to permit alternative types of school in accordance with the preference of the parents, while in the single- school area the largest possible provision, consistent with the unity of school life, would be made for differences of religious belief. The Committee commend their plan to the careful con- sideration of all parties, as one which secures religious teaching as an integral part of school life, and attempts to deal reasonably with contending claims in the light of national needs."
Though our space is very limited, the composition of the Executive Committee is so important that we feel com- pelled to give the names of its members in full. We venture to say that it is impossible to read this list without a sense of the very great importance of the Committee's suggestions. The fact that men of views so various have been able to agree upon a scheme is in itself a notable proof that the settlement of our educational system on a national basis is not impossible. No doubt the clergy of the Church of England and of the Free Churches on the Committee are men of exceptional light and leading, but at the same time it may very fairly be said to be a microcosm of that part of the nation which concerns itself with the problem of religious education. That these men can agree, and agree ex mime and not merely because they have been compelled to agree by some external force, appears to us the best of omens. Here are the names :— Sir C. T. Dyke Adana, Bart. (chairman), Mr. E. L. Anstie, Rev. Dr. G. S. Barrett, Mr. Godfrey Benson, Mr. W. Pitcher Bride, Mrs. S. Bryant, Mr. R. W. B. Buckland, Miss Burstall, Miss Cleghorn, Rev. W. J. Conybeare, Rev. H. P. Crenshaw, Rev. H. Wesley Dennis, Rev. J. E. Watts Ditchfield, Rev. Dr. T. C. Fry, Miss Houston Gibbs, Rev. C. Hargrove, Rt. Hon. Henry Hobhouse, Rev. Canon Scott Holland, Rev. C. Silvester Home, M.P., Rev. Professor Inge, Mr. Cyril Jackson, Rev. Canon Johnston, Mr. G. Edwardes Jones, Rev. H. Gresford Jones, Mr. A. G. Legard, Mr. H. R. Levinsohn, Rev. Dr. J. Scott Lidgett, the Very Rev. the Dean of Lincoln, Alderman Lewis Morgan, Mr. George Macmillan, Miss Manley, Rev. Canon Maplesden, Mr. 3. E. G. de Montmorency, Rev. Professor J. H. Moulton, Rev. Sir W. Robertson Nicoll, Rev. Preb. the Hon. J. S. Northcote, the Warden of New College, Oxford, Rev. E. H. Pearce, Mr. P. P. Tennant, Mr. A. R Pickles, Rev. C. A. E. Pollock, Rev. Canon Rawnsley, Rev. Preb. Reynolds, Mr. E. B. Sargent, Rev. Principal W. B. Seibie, Rev. J. H. Shake- speare, Rev. J. G. Simpson, Rev. B. Snell, Rev. Canon Morley Stevenson, Mr. J. St. Lee Strachey, Mr. H. J. Torr, Miss Hermione Unwin, Dr. W. T. Whitley, the Very Rev. the Dean of Win- chester, Rev. Dr. Workman, Mr. T. E. Harvey, M.P. (honorary secretary), Professor M. E. Sadler (honorary secretary), Mr. R. C. Davison (assistant secretary).
We have only one more word to say, and that is to ask the Church of England clergy in rural districts not to con- demn the proposals of the Committee offhand, and on some partisan summary of their contents. We would implore them to keep an open mind until they have not only read the scheme in detail, but have taken time to think it out carefully, and with a view not so much to picking holes in its abstract proposals as to considering its practical working. Let them not imagine all sorts of abstract possibilities of injustice, but work out as practical men what would in reality be the consequences of the scheme in the school at, say, Great Saxeby or Little Angleton supposing the proposals had become law. We cannot help thinking that in the light of such slow and careful consideration a great many of the terrifying visions which can be called into existence by a hasty perusal of the scheme will vanish, and that it will be found that the proposals are quite compatible with the doing of their full duty by those who have accepted the trust of educating children in the religious principles of the Church of England.
Previous page
