PROFESSOR PEARSON ON RELIGIOUS EDUCATION.

Otago Witness, 25 December 1880, Page 13

PROFESSOR PEARSON ON RELIGIOUS EDUCATION.

The ' Victorian Review " contains an article by Professor Pearson, in which, after discussing the various proposals for aiueudments in the Education Acfc in the direction of religious teaching, and stating objections to thorn «v, ha gives hia own solution ot the religious difficulty ia the following terms. He praofcioally endorses the New South Wales system :— My own feeling Is that very sensible relief may bo gifen to Catholics by a few modifications of our present Education Act, and all the changes I would propose, with one exception, might be carried out by the Minister himself, being nothing more than the reversal of departmental rules. In the first place, I would give all ministers of religion the right to claim the use of a room two hours a week at least, either just before or just after the hours of attendance, under definite regulations, and on such days as the Board of Advice may recommend. It is one grievance of the present system that the clergy can only ask leave to teach in a State school as a favour ; and, though they have scarcely ever been denied, it would be as weil to remove the apparent injustice. The prohibition to teach before school hours was the decision of a Minister, and was not, I think, designed by the f ramers of the Act. Where there is only one room to the school, it ought still, I think, to be maintained. Otherwise, children arriving before time, as they very often do in the country districts, would either have to stay outside in the sun and rain, or to be present while a strange catechism was being taught. But wherever there are two rooms to the school, this difficulty would disappear. Further, as Catholics say that they wish their children to learn religion in a room hung round with sacred pictures and emblems, I see no reason why the teacher should not be allowed to hang up crucifixes and pictures during the hour of the religious lesson The last change I would propose is the only considerable one. It is to omit the clause enacting that "no teacher shall give any other than secular instruction in any State school building." There would still remain the obligation that only secular instruction should be given during school hours, but it would leave the teacher free to teach religion as an extra out of school hours. The clergy would thus be able to get the children together at convenient times, to teach them in the State schools, and, if they preferred it by State school teachers. The teachers would still retain their independence, being accountable to the State only, and teaching religion, if they taught it at all, as they might teach German or the piano, to increase their salaries or because they liked teaching it. I am not sanguine enough, of course, to assume that this plan will satisfy extremists. I have reason however, to believe that it would content many moderate persons, and I should be glad to remove the sense of grievance from these. Sympathising, as I do, with the aims of the men who desire to see religion taught in our schools, I prefer this plan to the Canadian, or j to that advocated by Dr Moorhouse, because it would I allow the teaching to be thorough and fearless. The fact that it can be carried out with so little change in our Education Act is also a practical argument in its favour.