OUR EDUCATION SYSTEM INADEQUATE.

Evening Star, Issue 15268, 21 August 1913, Page 8

OUR EDUCATION SYSTEM INADEQUATE.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir, —A few years after our secular system of education camo into operation m New Zealand the New Zealand Government appointed Dr Laishley, of Auckland, to act as Commissioner to make inquiries with regard to the education systems of the various countries in Europe and in tho .United States. When he came back from his mission he presented to tho New Zea''~nd Parliament an exhaustive and elabo~v> report that he had gathered in his «<-'nft«i». In that report, in comparing our L\ew Zealand system with systems in operation in other countries, he mads special reference to the inadequacy of a purely secular system of education, and recommended the introduction of the Bible into the public schools. This recommendation of Dr Laishley has simply voiced the feelings and opinions of the great mass of the democracy *. of New Zealand, as shown by plebiscite's in different parts of New Zealand time after time. The people have expressed a strong conviction that our system of education was in many ways, was defective in not making adequate "provision for the formation of character through ' moral training and teaching. The objective of the Bible in State Schools League- is not to destroy our national system of education, but to strengthen it. ' The object of the league is not the anti-nationalism of arid secularism, nor the denominationalism of the narrow religionist, but its aim is to make our system of education reflect the feelings and opinions of all the people preponderantly Christian, and thus make the system truly national. The inadequacy of a purely secular system of education is shown in recent books and publications. The Rev. Frank £t. L. Paton, M.A., son of the late Dr Paton, the misionary hero of the South Seas, has just published a book entitled 'The Message of the Student Movement.' The first rhapter of tlia-t book deals with the spiritual factor in university life, and he gives very direct and arresting evidence of the moral impotency of mere secularism in education. He finds an illustration of this in the experience of the Japanese Empire. The "following is his testimony: Two years ago I had the privilege of visiting" Japan and discussing the situation with natives and foreigners. Educationists told me that members of the Cabinet had become alarmed at what Ihey believed to be a moral deterioration among the young men of Japan, ind that they we're earnestly searching ior the cause. A minority had come to ;he conclusion that tho elimination of tho spiritual factor was the reason, but the majority held that to go to religion would be a retrograde policy. Still, the investigations continued, and ivithin 12 months the majority became convinced that the minority were right, and that the attempt to educate the youth of Japan without taking into account the spiritual factor had been :: disastrous failure. With characferisti. thoroughness and courage the Cabinet then called a conference of representatives of Buddhism, Shintoism, and Christianity, with a view of their co-operat-ing with the Government in supplying the religious element in the national system of education. They next cah.ed a conference of professors and head masters, and these, by a majority resolution, declared that the Cabinet was right, and that the national experiment had failed. The Government is now considering how this corner stone which the builders rejected can be built in to complete their educational structure. It is surely a profoundly impressive thing to hear a non-Christian Cabinet declaring to the world that the spiritual factor is absolutely necessary to the development of character, and that without character education fails to fulfil its national purpose. Another quite recent work in which, the faadequacy of secularism is emphasised is entitled ' Modern Views on Education,' by Professor Thiselton Mark, of the University of Manchester. He says, writing on the solution of the religious problem on education in England: "Should the policy of undenominationalism be to lead to the branding of our publio schools as secular, the hurt to tho nation's life might Moll be regarded as no less great. We have, in the decision to abandon the secular education debate at the Trades Union Congress, an indication of tho nation's weariness of the discussion, and of the hopelessness of a fruitful outcome from Its maintenance." And he further quotes Canon Wilson, head master of Clifton, as follows: —'"It is ono of "the stupendous nnd far-reaching blunders that tha world outside of our profession makes when they say that masters cannot be trusted to speak on religion, because they would proselytise. It is to misconceive the nature of the only possible religious teaching at school." Professor Mark holds that reli- , gious teaching as part of the school curriculum is practicable. He says: ''What

appears to be feasible is that the State should take over the responsibility in the matter, and that within the extremes of, eay, 20 to 45 or 50 minutes daily, schemes of religious instruction should "be drawn up in the schools, and presented for approval, as they arc in other subjects." It has frequently been pointed out that in France, New Zealand, and in Victoria theoretical secularism has been entrenched in the systems of education of these places. Professor Mark, in the above-quoted work, calls attention to the unsatisfactory practical results of secularism in France. Ha writes: "Under the title 'Rationalism© et Tradition,' M. Delyolve has recently published & careful inquiry into the effects of the 'lay moral instruction' in France, as compared with the earlier traditional religious instruction. He comes to the conclusion that the dynamic effect of the new teaching upon the moral 'nature of the scholars is inadequate. _ And this he believes to bebecause it fails to attach it-self to any 'living centre' within the child's nature, ' around which the elements of the moral life group themselves, as it were, spontaneously, as an organism develops from an original central germ.' The traditional religions had such _ an organic centre. There is ample British testimony to confirm this view." Recently _ an exhaustive work was published entitled ' Moral Instruction and I'rainincj in Schools, Report of an Inter-national-Inquiry.' This work furnishes very striking evidence, as regards experience in education, of the insufficiency cf the power of secularism. Professor Eucken, of Jena, a recognised philosopher cf repute, is quoted as follows in this work:—"Long established tradition makes the beginnings of direct instruction in moral principle the special concern of reli • gion. For this power in education, especially _in the training of the younger children, it will be hard indeed to find a substitute." In the introduction to this work the following impressive statements are to be found:—"The question of moral education is the heart of the modern educational problem. If this is neglected, education is a peril." And again: "So far as Great Britain is concerned, the committee arc impressed by the earnest conviction with which so large a number of the teachers. and especially of the women teachers, both in our elementary and secondary schools, speak of the power of the religious lessons to inspire high moral ideal and to touch the springs of conduct. We are assured by our own investigators, and by sotra :>f those who have given oral evidence, that the withdrawal of the religious lesson? from the schools (and in a still higher - degree the prohibition of acts of commoii worship) woidd be regarded by multitudes of teachers as a calamity, hurtful (as they believe).to the children/ injurious, as they know, to their own spiritual life." j| may put a period to this communication by referring to the article in the ' Contemporary Review' for the month of June, by J. _ Compton-Rickett, entitled ' A New Crisis in Education.' Mr Compton-Rickett is a pronounced Liberal in politics, and in writing on the so-called religious difficulty in education he emphasises the fact that "a secular solution is no solution at all. He v/rites as follows :—" In deference to th« democracy, why not establish a secular Bi-stem at onoe? You can end the reli-

cious question by cutting it clean out. Here, however, a singular fact emerges: that there is no sustained popular demand for such a secular system. If there had been, it would have come long ago. Under the old School Board no one was comnelled to adopt Bible instruction or any religious worship. Schools under their control could have been run on secular lines, and fite same direction survives in local authcifiy to-day. Some few have taken advantage of this liberty, but they are few indeed. . . . There is a further difficulty of teaching morality without illustrations. Childhood must be taught by parable, and even to older men and women. Without- a parable spake He not unto them. Where can finer illustrations be found than those that lie to the hand of I the teacher in the Bible itself? A selection of these stories, tho study of ths life of Jesus Christ, crystallises morality into forms easy to be understood." And" again ho says: " The State does not profess to teach .Christianity, but only such parts of it as effect civic, life, and our human responsibility to one another by instruction in the New Testament and by simple forms of worship. It teach-as morality in the highest, and Christianity in the making." All this weighty testimony with regard to the inadequacy of systems of "education in which there is no provision for moral training is worthy of being pondered by every citizen in our Dominion at this time. T.he true wealth of a nation consists.in its manhood, its womanhood; strong in moral character. That such a system of education as ours needs amendment is shown not only by the judgment of educational experts, but also by the experience of countries where secularism has been by experience weighed in the balanoa and found wanting.—l am, etc., Robert Wood, Organising Agent. August 21.