TEACHERS’ INSTITUTE

Hokitika Guardian, 18 June 1931, Page 2

TEACHERS’ INSTITUTE

"MEETING OF WESTLAND BRANCH

A meeting was held at the District High School, Hokitika, on Saturday j3th. June, for the purpose of considering the “Religious Exercises m Schools Enabling Bill” about to be introduced into Parliament. The meeting received a deputation from the Bible-in-Sohools League— Rev. H. J. W. Knights, ltev. G. A. Naylor. After the deputation had ad. ‘dressed members, many questions were |asked and dealc with. After apologising for the absence 01 "Colonel Studholme and stating the of their visit the Rev. Knights Tasked Rev. Naylor to present the case dor the; League. I Rev. G. A. Naylor.—“l should like jto bring before you some facts .and fjftleas which are connected with the Bill we are to discuss. In the hrst tj, , (place, our system of Education is not Jan immutable thing, nor one of very dong standing. It is no crime to propose an alteration in it even if that be an epoch making one. ’All education systems are subject to l continuous alteration, or if not they ! 6ught to be. Vs .National education is a new thing, iftot only in New Zealand but in our Western civilisation. When a echeuie of education was introduced New Zealand it was divorced from religion as a matter of necessity

rather than of choice. Two of the main .-..settlements of New Zealand had been V.lurch settlements, there were acute differences within the Protestant denominations and these denominations actually provided a large percentage of such schools as existed. In order • to arrive at a scheme which could be applied generally throughout the coun-,-try, the' Education. Act provides that religion be secularised. 'Such was the'necessity of the time; but times change,'denominations which diverged with bitterness at this point luty years ago are now in complete accord. Back through the history of education we find that religion has been regarded as integral with it. I cannot remember the name of one great educationalist who thought of dividing these two things and while many things in educational theory are very hotly debated it would appear that the leaders of this realm of thought are practically agreed on the importance of religion in regard to a true education. If you are content to ram knowledge into children’s heads and call it education, you' will, within certain limited fields have no need of religion in your curriculum. If, ' on the contrary, you regard it as your duty , to develop tile' character of the child a.nd to fit him to use knowledge, not merely ~ to' acquire, vit j if "is difficult * to pee how you are to secure adequate results without religion, In England and‘ Scotland and in almost all the Dominions and Dependencies of the British Empire, religion is recognised as an essential factor in education. The same holds good of almost all of Western Europe. France is. the only exception which I know of ajSd in the greater number of these countries, and those the happiest and most contented, much more time is allowed for it than the maximum permissible under tho proposed Act,, I would like to emphasise that the existing state of things cannot be considered a neutral one as between and irreligion. It is quite definitely irreligious and our country is not a secular country. It is a Christian one. True dt is very imperfectly Christain as we are individually; but we take the name. The sphere of the State’s responsib-

ility regarding children' has been grad»*smtially extended. Teachers are now expected to train body as well as mind; only those' things of the Spirit'which, are comprehended under the term religion are excluded from your care. You may say this is the, task of the v Church, so it is. This Bill is iiuu meant to replace the work of < our Sunday Schools. llu|. £ it is meant to put religion in its proper place. Our * Sunday Schools are ; staiffed largely by amateurs, devoted people, some of them very ,good - teachers, some very **' poor ones. ’Children, are quick to luake , comparison. On week days they must i . attend school to. receive instruction from professional whose life w' work it is. jf| On Sundays, ,ff Dad isn’t taking p them out for a spin in the car, they If may have an hour' at Sunday School, I S feeling themselves rather for . patronising such an institution. I repeat that children are quick to make comparisons. , i!; . If this Bill is passed it will mean ,more work and trouble for those who null be willing to avail -themselves of’its provisions; but that oi;k should appeal to all good teachas worth while. Everything that it-hafl ever been worth while has been more work for someone. Here is what the President-elect,- Mr Manning, of the British National Union of Teachers i;:lia.§ said—“ England is not a secular teachers of this country .Jionestly value the opportunities given filiem to teach,religion pure and undefiled.” Surely the same is true of Qui . jr ew Zealand Teachers. H. J. W. Knights—l want to . soe.ak first of all of . the. old Bible in ' schools Bill, and tlie way it came being. In 1922"? ?the Anglican General q Synod carried a resolution • requesting the Bishops “in conference with the beads of the Christian bodies, and later with representatives of the Education Department and of the State School teachers—to find, with as little delay as possible,

some method acceptable to all parties which will make it possible for the State School teachers to give religious instruction to the children in school hours.” Consultation with so many Christian Churches is a lengthy business, and it was not until shortly before the opening of Parliament in 1924 that all these Churches (with the exception of the Roman Catholic Church) reached an agreemnt ai;a a common platform; this agreement was embodied in the “Religious Exercises in Schools Bill,” hereafter called the Old Bill.

Unfortunately, the latter part of the Synod’s resolution was not given effect to, and no conference wa.s held with representatives of the State .School teachers; had this been' clone, the Bill would probably have been made more generaly acceptable, and might possibly have passed through Parliament. Tins lfill was not considered to be ideal, but to be a great advance on a purely secular system, and to be the best agreement that could, with any certainty, be arrived at. The OldBill has been before Parliament on several occasions: each time jit lia* been defeated by a very small majority. Tho experience of the past six years, all the discussions'and criticisms of the Bill—both constructive and otherwise —and much study and thought on tho whole matter convinced some of the Bible-in-Shhools leaders that it should be possible to get the Christians fot'niing the league to agree to a better solution and one more likely to meet with general approval; the outcome of this belief was the drafting of tho ‘‘Religious Instruction in Schools Enabling Bill,” hereafter called the New Bill. This Bill has been before the various Churches for over a year, and has been most thoroughly considered; conferences have also been held with the Roman Catholics: the result of all these discussions is that the Churches represented in the League have arrived at practical unanimity in its favour, and the New Bill has been adopted by the League’s executive as the platform of the League in place* of the Old Bill, nnd, further, the Roman Catholic Bishops have undertaken not to oppose li)t; the latter fact should go far to improve the pro's, pect of the Bill in Parliament and to ensure the smooth and harmonious working of the new system, should it come into operation.

Of the many differences between the Old and the New Bills the most important one is this “That in place of mere Bible reading without comment, permission is given, as in England, for instruction in the Bible lesson, subject only to the restrictions contained in Section 9, which is an exact copy of the well known CowperTemple Claiuse.”

| Section 9. “No religious catechism or religious formulary which is distinctive, of any particular denomination shall be taught in tile school in School houl’s, and no attempt shall be made to attach children to any particular denomination, 11

Tlie Now Bill .is based largely but not wholly on the English aystem of Religious Instruction in Council Schools, a system that has successfully stood the test of fifty years’ experience.

When in England in 1929, Colonel Studholme of the Bible in Schools League spent a considerable time investigating the methods and results of this system: all the evidence went to show that the religious instruction in the Council Schools of England and Wales is being given 'with the greatest smoothness and without giving rise to any secretarian difficulties, with steadily increasing efficiency a,ltd to the apparent satisfaction of all concerned. There have admittedly been controversies in the past, some of them acute, and there are still at times controversies in regard to religious instruction in schools in England, but I desire to point out that all those controversies have been concerned with denominational Church schools, and in regard to such matters as the amount of State aid to be given them, or the measure of control to be exercised by the Local Education Authority and the Trust Managers respectively: there have been and are no sectarian controversies with regard to the religious instruction in the State Primary Schools generally termed Council Schools.

The relipj'ou.s ,instruction in these latter schools far from generating sectavian strife 'has, on the contrary, owing to the necessary co-operation for. the compilation of syllabuses, etc. and the consequent demonstration oi many points of agreement and the few of disagreement, proved the most potent • factors between the various Churches concerned. As further evidence of the successful working of the English system, I beg to draw your attention to the following facts: In 1926, at the request of the Anglican Church Assembly, a Commission was appointed by the. Archbishops to report on religious education in England and Wales: their report was publiV’ed in October. 1929, and the majority of the members (18 out of 24) recommended that: “There should be no repeal of the Cowper-Temple Clause.” “The Cowper-Temple Clause, though it prohibits the teaching of denominational formalism and catechism in Council Schools, does not prohibit the teaching of -the Christian religion, indeed” (thev go - on to soy) “we believe that religious teaching was never ■better or more widespread in the Council Schools than it is to-day.” This is striking evidence, coming as it does from the Church of England which for many years was critical, and at times hostile, to the religious instruction given in Council Shcools, and especially to the restrictions imposed by the Cowper-Temple Clause. Long experience, however, and ste.ad-

ily improved instruction has convinced her of the value of, tho former and the wisdom of the latter, and no church is now co-operating more heart, ily with other Bodies in increasing the efficiency of the religious teaching in the Council Schools than the Church of England. At the 1929 Conference of the English National Union of Teachers a resolution in support and appreciation of the Cowper-Temple Clause was carried unanimously, while, on the other hand, 'an attempt to pass a resolution in favour of the entire secularisation of the National Education (that is, to change it to pur system) was defeated by an overwhelming majority, less than 20 of the 2,000 delegates present voting for it. Could there be more conclusive' proof of the satisfaction of the English teachers with the English system ? In 1920 a Departmental Committee was appointed by the President of the English Board of Education to report on the teaching of English in England; their report was published in 1921. Among their recommendations is the following :

“That in all schools the reading of the Bible should not be confined to tlie time set apart for religions instruction, but that its claim upon the tame devoted to English studies should also be recognistd.”

In England the time set apart for religious instruction by tlie different Local Education Authorities varies Irom 2$ to 3jr per wtek, as compared with u maximum of only two hours permitted by. the New Bill, and yet additional study of the Bible is recommended.

Did space permit I could give many other extracts from this report showing the high value placed by this committee ol educational experts on tlie study of the Bible in any system of national education, and especially if the aim was to Ljive tiie cliiid a liberal education; all interested in this matter would do well to read this report, ana especially pages 340 and 347. The voluntary nature of the gradual operation of the New Bill.—The Bill provides for a system more voluntary than that provided by the Old Bill or by the English system and is in fact of such a voluntary nature that it will almost certainly come into operation only gradually and as voluntary teachers become available; to my mind this is an advantage rather than a disadvantage, as it will go far to ensure the religious instruction being given in a sympathetic atmosphere; it is not desired in any way to force its operation because its promoters are confident that the good results of religion in the school will soon become so apparent in those schools who adopt the new system, that adjoining schools will one by one follow their example until gradually and almost imperceptibly the new system will become the general custom, in short, it is believed the new system Will justify itself.

The 1 League 'and the teachers. —As 1. have already said, the- various Christian Bodies have been fully consulted in regard to this Bill; this time we are determined not to omit consultation with the /State School teachers: we have already for some time past taken advantage of every opportunity to consult them, both individually and collectively, and we will continue to do so, in fact, many suggestions made by teachers have already been incorporated in this Bill. I desire to emphasise this fact that the members of the League’s Executive generally, and, in particular, , those who- have had* most to do with the drafting of this Bill, have done all in their power to study the interests and to safeguard the status of the school teacher, not only because we desire his support of the New Bill, hut also and still more, because we realise that even should the New Bill become law, the new system will be likely to succeed in direct proportion to the co-operation and sympathetic attitude of the school teachers—to my mind, the attitude of the teacher and the supply of voluntary teachers is the crux of the whole matter. My second statement is that “The conviction that. some measure of religious teaching in our schools is needed if our present-day ethical standards are to he maintained is becoming so increasingly prevalent that it is almost certain to bring about some legislation on the matter within the next year or so! If this statement is, as I believe, a fact-, then I would venture to ask would it not he better for school teachers to co-operate now with the Executive of the" League —a Body so desirous to study the interests of the teachers—in reaching a carefully thought out and satisfactory solution of this question rather than leave the whole matter to chance and run the risk of having some ill-con-sidered scheme' without any proper safeguards imposed upon us. An opportunity of further discussing this important matter will be afforded the teachers on Saturday. 4th. July, after which it is expected that a definite expression of opinion from this Branch will he submitted t-o the New Zealand Educational Institute Executive.