THE ROYAL COMMISSION ON EDUCATION.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 868, 19 October 1888, Page 30

THE ROYAL COMMISSION ON EDUCATION.

I. On the 15tli of January, 1886, the Administration of the Marquis of _ Salisbury appointed a Royal Commission to inquire into the working of the various Acts affecting Public Elementary Education. Its final Report was issued on the 10th of August of the present year. The Report of the Majority, which extends over 223 pages, is signed by Lord Cross, the Duke of Norfolk, Lord Harrowby, Lord Beauchamp, the Bishop of London, the Rev J. H. Rigg, Canon Gregory, the Rev T. D. C. Morse, Mr J. G. Talbot, and Mr Samuel Rathbone ; also, with certain reservations, by Cardinal Manning, Lord Norton, Sir Francis Sandford, Archdeacon Smith, and Mr C. H. Anderson. The Report of the Minority is signed by Mr Lynlph Stanley, the Rev R. W. Dale, Sir John Lubbock, Sir B. Samuelson, Mr Sydney Buxton, Mr T. E. Heller, Mr Henry. Richard, M.D., and Mr George Sliipton. The. Report of the Majority, therefore, bears the signanatures of fifteen of the Commission, while that of the Minority bears only eight. These two - Reports are supplemented by a third Report, in which five members of the Minority enter more fully into the question, one of them affixing his signature with a further series of reservations. Appended to these reports, which together cover 393 pages of large folio, are some 110 pages of questions and returns brimful of valuable information. The Report of the Majority is divided into seven parts. Part I. explains the existing law, and is subdivided into four chapters :—Chapter I. deals with the Administration of the Education Grant from its inception in 1832 to the appointment of the Royal Commission presided over by the Duke of Newcastle in 1858 ; Chaper IT. gives the results of that Commission and traces the gradual developement of the Grant in Aid System, Mr R. Lowe’s Payment by Results, and the various measures which preceded Mr Forster’s Act in 1870 ; Chaper 111. describes the legislation - of 1870, the Supplementary Act of 1873, Lord Sandon’s measure of 1876 and Mr Mundella’s Act of 1880 ; and Chapter IV. describes the various changes that have been made in the Education Codes during the fifteen years from 1870 to 1885. . . Part H. is entitled “ The Existing State of Facts,” and it reviews in an exhaustive manner the present condition of elementary education in England. Part IH. deals with the “ Machinery for Carrying on Public Elementary Education,” and is subdivided into seven chapters :—Chapter I. deals with the Supply of Schools, closing with a discussion as to “Who may Use the Supply;” Chapter H. with the “ Structural Suitability of the Present School Supply Chapter HI. with “ School Management ; ” Chapter IV. with “ School Inspectors Chapter V. with “Teachers and Staff;” Chapter VI. with “Training Colleges ;” and Chapter VII. with the question of Attendance and Compulsion. Part IV. treats of the “ Education and Instruction given in Elementary Schools,” and is subdivided into five chapters : Chapter I. deals with the “ Religious and Moral Training;” Chapter 11. with the “Curriculum of Instruction;” Chapter in. with “Manual and Technical Instruction ;” Chapter IV. with the “Various Classes of Elementary Schools; and Chapter V. with “ Elementary Schools and Higher Education.” These four parts are the most interesting of the report, the fourth especially, and to this last one we will confine the few remarks we are able to make room for in this i.3sue. It will be seen at a glance that tlw composition of the Royal Commission entitles any judgment it may issue with the countenance of a substantial majority of its members to the respectful consideration of the public. The House of Commons, and that of the Lords, the Clergy and the Laity, the Church of England, and the Roman Catholic Church, the Establishment, and Dissent, have all bad their representatives on the Commission, and representatives worthy of the responsibility put upon them. The evidence they were careful to collect is derived from the most authoritative sources, from old officials of the Education Department, old Government Inspectors of Schools, Diocesan Inspectors, principals of Training Schools, members of the more prominent School Boards, representatives of science, of Religious Educational Associations, of the school teachers, and of the working men; and with regard to the manner of taking the evidence, the Commissioners observe ' —“ &o far as was possible throughout a long and protracted inquiiy wo. have endeavoured to crroup together the representatives of each class of. witnesses, and without absolutely declining to hear all the witnesses who have appearedbefore uson any subjectconnecfced with elementary education, it na3 been our endeavour, generally, _ to confine each one of them to those points with which he is specially conversant ; and no representative witness, so far as we know, has been precluded from giving evidence before us.” During the 95 days spent m hearing evidence, 151 witnesses passed before the Commission, and the result of their testimony appears in the following recommendations, which are endorsed by two-thirds of the Commissioners: — That we see no reason why voluntary effort should not be entitled to work pan with a School Board in providing

accommodation to meet any increase of population subsequent to the determination of the necessary school supply arrived at by the Department after the first inquiry of 1871. If a similar inquiry were held periodically —say, every five yearsvoluntary effort might be recognised in the interval between two inquiries as entitled to meet any deficiency not ordered to be filled up by the School Board on the requisition of the Department. We do not think that the letter, much less the spirit, of the Act of 1870 would be violated by such an irrangement, or by its being distinctly understood that an efficient school, whether provided to meet a numerical deficiency or specially required by any part of the population, would be admitted by the Department as part of the supply of the district, and be entitled to claim a errant as soon as it was opened. ° That while we desire to secure for the children in the public elementary schools the best and most thorough instruction in secular subjects, suitable ts their years and in harmony with the requirements of their future life, we are also unanimously of opinion that their religious and moral training is a matter of still higher importance, alike to the children, the parents and the nation. That to secularise Elementary Education would be a violation of tlie wishes of parents, whose views in such a matter are, we think, entitled to the first consideration. That the only safe foundation on which to construct a theory of morals, or to secure high moral conduct, is the religion which our Lord Jesus Christ has taught the world. That as we look to the Bible for instruction concerning morals, and take its words for the declaration of what is morality, so we look to the same inspired source for the sanctions by which men may be led to practice what is there taught, and for instruction concerning the helps by which they may be enabled to do what they have learned to be right. That the evidence does not warrant the conclusion that religious and moral training can be amply provided otherwise than through the medium of elementary schools. That, in the case of a considerable number of children, if they do not receive religious instruction and training from the teachers in the Public Elementary Schools, they will receive none, and that this would be a matter of the gravest concern to the State That all registers should be marked before the religious teaching and observances begin, scrupulous care being taken in accordance with the letter and spirit of the Education Acts, to provide for the case of children whose parents object to such teaching and observances. That it is of the highest importance that the teachers who are charged with the moral training of the scholars should continue to take part in the religious instruction, and that any separation of the teachers from the religious teaching of the school would be injurious to the moral and secular training of the scholars. That we cannot recommend the plan which has been suggested of religious instruction to be given by voluntary teachers on the school premises out of school hours. That such a plan would be no efficient substitute for the existing system of utilising the school staff and the hours of school attendance for this purpose, a system which has taken deep root in the country, and appears to give general satisfaction to the parents. That the State cannot be constructively regarded as endowing religious education, when, under the conditions of the Act of 1870, it pays annual grants in aid of voluntary local effort for secular instruction in schools in which religious instruction forms part of the programme. That the 14th section of the Act of 1870, which forbids any denominational catechism or formulary to be taught in Board schools, merely provided for perfect neutrality among Christian denominations. It does not exclude from the school instruction the religion of nature —that is, the existence of God, and of natural morality, which, apart from belief in the existence of God, cannot be intelligibly taught or understood. That the conscience clause is strangely misconstrued, when it is understood to “ prevent the possiblifcy of an allusion to religious subjects during the ordinary hours of instruction,” or to preclude a teacher from “bringing the sanction of the Christian religion to bear ” on any moral offence, such as lying, which requires attention during these hours. That inasmuch'as parents are compelled to send their children to school, it is just and desirable that, as far as possible, they should be enabled to send them to a school suitable to their religious convictions or preferences. That ill schools of a denominational character to which parents are compelled to send their children the parents have a right to require an operative conscience clause, and that care be taken that the children shall not suffer in any way in consequence of their taking advantage of the conscience clause.

That the. absence of any substantial case of complaint, and the general drift of the evidence, convince us that the conscience clause is carefully observed both by teachers and managers. That we recognise, nevertheless, the importance of removing, if possible, any suspicion of unfair play or undue influence in the administration of the conscience clause from the minds of those who entertain such impressions. And any further precautions which might tend in that direction, without compromising still higher

interests, are deserving of the most careful consideration.

That, greatly as the estimate of the religious instruction given in Board Schools variel with the standpoint from which it is regarded, there is good greund for concluding thatwhere care is bestowed on tho organisation of such instruction, and sufficient time is allowed for imparting it, it is of a nature to affect the conscience and influence the conduct of the children of whose daily training it forms part. That it is much to bo hoped that the religious and moral training in all Elementary Schools may be raised to the high standard which has been already reached in many of them. That exactly the same facilities to hold annual examinations of their schools in religious knowledge should be given by law to School Boards as are now allowed under section 76 of the Act of 1870 to the managers of Voluntary Schools. That increased support should be given by the State to the moral element of training in our schools, almost the only reference to the importance of such matters made by the State being that which is made in the Code under tlie head of dicipline. That general, fundamental and fixed instructions to Her Majesty’s Inspectors should be laid down as to moral training, making it an essential condition of the efficiency of a Public Elementary School that its teaching should comprise such matters as instruction in duty and reverence to parents, honour and truthfulness in word and act, honesty, consideration and respect for others, obedience, cleanliness, good manners, purity, temperance, duty to country, the discouragement of bad language, and the like. That it should be tlie first duty of Her Majesty’s Inspectors to inquire into and report upon the moral training and condition of the schools under the various heads set forth, and to impress upon the managers, teachers and children the primary importance of this essential element of all education. That the present large annual outlay, as now distributed, does not secure for the nation commensurate results. That the distribution of the Parliamentary grant cannot be wholly freed from its present dependence on the results of examination without the risk of incurring graver evils than those it is sought to cure. Nor can wo believe that Parliament will continue to make so large an annual grant as that which now appears in the Education Estimates without in some way satisfying itself that the quality in the education given justifies the expenditure. Nevertheless, we are unanimously of opinion that the present system of “payment by results ” is carried too far, and is too rigidly applied, and that it ought to be modified and relaxed in the interests equally of the scholars, of the teachers, and of education itself. That it is reasonable and just that the supporters of voluntary schools should retain the management of these schools on the condition of bearing some substantial share of the burden of the cost in subscriptions. But it does not seem either just or expedient to allow the voluntary system to be gradually destroyed by the competition of Board schools with unlimited resources at their command. That there is no reason why the principle of voluntary schools receiving annual aid from the rates should not be extended and rate aid, in respect of their secular efficiency, should not be given to voluntary schools (as it is now given-to industrial and reformatory schools), without the imposition of the Cowper-Temple clause, which, under the Act of 1870, affects those schools only which are provided and supported entirelyby the rates. That the rate for this payment should, in the case of a School Attendance Committee, be chargeable on the separate school district affected. That the local educational authority should be empowered to supplement from local rates the voluntary subscriptions given to tlie support of a public Stateaided elementaiy school in their district, to an amount equal to these subscriptions, but not exceeding ten shillings for each child in average attendance. The Minority Report of course differs from the above in toto. Practically speaking, it is a plea for the retention of the present system of undenominational Scripture lessons now in habitual use in Board schools as the only safeguard against tho introduction of dogmatic teaching; and, as a leading press exponent of the views of the minority expresses it, it contends that “ moral training should be given by a code of golden rules, or by definite lessons on the duties of an honest citizen. The conduct of teachers and tone of the school will give substantial moral training, and it is that kind of training alone which should be recognised in’ schools supported by public money.” Finally, the Commissioners who are responsible for this Minority Report declare that “whether free education be or be not desirable, no practicable scheme for universal free schools, consistent with the continuance of the voluntary school system, has yet been presented.” 11. There are two reservations of more than ordinary importance touching upon that portion of the report which deals with the question of voluntary schools. One is by a member of the majority (his Eminence Cardinal Manning), and the other by a member of the minority (Mr Sydney Buxton). The former says:—“l have willingly signed the report of the Royal Commission on Elementary. Education because in the main I agree with its conclusions and recommendations 5 fryjt it h&l IWV tiffed

of the one subject which I believe to be chief in importance, and of the most vital influence in the education of the people of England and Wales. When the Commission opened its sessions, and during the whole course of the evidence, it seemed inevitable that the inconvenience and anomaly of the two existing systems—the Voluntary and the School Board systems —should become manifest, and that some higher and more comprehensive administration which should combine them both and place them upon a just and equal level would be recommended by the Commission to the Legislature. It cannot be believed that in the year 1870 it was intended to place the voluntary system in a position of such unjust inequality in relation to the new system of School Boards. By the interpretation of the Act of 1870 a practically unlimited multiplication paid for out of the school rate has been given to the Board school system. From the voluntary system the power of multiplication has been practically taken away, not only by the refusal of State aid in building, but by the frequent refusal to recognise schools founded by unaided voluntary effort. Again, the voluntary system is aided from one source only of public revenue. The Board school system is aided from two. It receives Government grants on terms of perfect equality with the voluntary schools, and it has the absolute control of the education rates, from which the voluntary schools are as absolutely excluded. This unequal treatment of the two systems has also caused for the last 17 years a most unequal competition, in which in every branch of expenditure the Board schools are able to outstrip the heavily-weighted system of voluntary schools. Nevertheless, in the comparative efficiency of the two classes cf school in respect to the three elementary subjects, which are the substance of all education, the Board schools exceed certain voluntary schools by one or two per cent, or by only decimal points, and, after all, are not the highest in comparative success. It has hitherto appeared very improbable that the Commission should close its report without pointing out these unjust inequalities and suggesting, at least in outline, some future legislative remedy. The most sanguine friends of the voluntary system cannot believe that it will ever recover the whole population of England and Wales ; neither can the most devoted advocates of the Board school system believe that it can ever extinguish the voluntary system, which is the shelter of the religious liberty of the people and of the rights of conscience in parents, and gives freedom to the inextinguishable religious denominations of our country. We stand, therefore, at a point at -which we are compelled to choose one of two sources, either to perpetuate our present fragmentary educational legislation, which, hitherto, has grown up piecemeal, involving the greatest inequalities in the measures of State aid, burdening thereby the supporters of the voluntary system with the maintenance of their own Christian schools, and with a payment of rates for a system which they conscientiously reject; or of framing some higher, more comprehensive, and more equitable law by which these unjust inequalities should be redeemed. Some new and larger statute for national education, equal and common to all, ought to restore the liberty of multiplication to the voluntary system, and to eliminate the contentions of our schools. It might have been reasonably hoped that the report of the Commission would have contained nob only minute and careful recommendations in alleviation of school management, founded upon the actual practice and conditions of the past, but that guarding against any premature schemes founded upon Bills which are as yet of uncertain character, it would have given some forecast of. future legislation founded upon principles more comprehensive, more just, and more in conformity with the desires and religious convictions of the immense majority of the people of England and Wales.” Mr Sydney Buxton’s reservation is to the following effect:—“The arguments and the evidence are, it seems to me, on the whole in favour of the introduction of a system of free schools —a system, however, not compulsory but permissive. In order to obviate any injury to the voluntary system, the same terms ought to be offered to voluntary as to B»ard schools, namely, that the managers of any and every public elementary school should, if they desire the abolition of the fee, be entitled to demand an additional annual grant from the consolidated fund. This additional grant might be calculated on the general average of the fees charged throughout tho elementary schools of the country, and depend on the average attendance at the particular school in question. ”