RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 7200, 11 September 1901, Page 1

RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION.

A WOMAN'S VIEWS. Speaking at the last meeting of the Women's Institute en "Religious Teaching in Schools," Mrs S. Page said:— Although, in theory* I am one of the most ardent of reformers, in practice I often find myself opposing many intended reforms. The reason is this: Our social system has grown up so slowly, and ■ «a<Jn. part is so dependent on all the others, that when ,we attempt to improve one we . are very apt -to find ourselves upsetting the whole •in such «f way as- to throw rtOmfest injustice on some members of the community. As I grow older I *eel more and more sure that the firsf thmg for us all to aim at is to improve and elevate our legislators, and then require of them a radical reform in' the whole government of the community. But, certainly, to perfect our education syrtem is the best, perhaps the only, way to commence- the improvement of our legislators. If the early Washing of our children were all it should be we should not in the future lack Cobdens, Lincolns and ■ Wilberforces. ,And therefore I am heart .and soul with, those who wish to see moral teaching ittj our •schools. But— and this is a very 'big "but"— l am compelled to differ very strongly from those who think this object can be accomplished by the "ntroductwn of a universal moral reader. Would ;« a consummation, so devoutly to - be-de-sired could so easily be attained. But surely the difficulties in the way of its use, "which, have, so often been quoted, are still insuperable. First, would' it be possible to agre« on a universal primer.' I -ihave seen, several so-called unsectawan moral readers, bu>i> raofc owe in which 1 could not find 1 something objectionable. How irouch more would! that, 'be the case Whism a score or two of different dem>min&.tao.ns met 'to discuss such books? I fancy, were tlhe attempt madie, our primer would sown be -cut dovrm to tfbe tern- Ooromaradmeii'ta, and I don't feel -a* all sure that even those would! be passed. Amid Irtthimik we; are agreed that the first reoommeodatioin «.f any moral reader shall be its perfect acceptability to aJI <flasses of- the oamanuwity. The one good thing, I 'had' almost said, about our present systemt of education l, is its universality. O-iive the. slightest, colour, to 'the demand some of .the denomiaiartiians air* so ready -to raise for. schools of their own, arid we mm the risk of a relturnt to the old system of sectarian education. ;Tvhtfcfo> Da<^ enough, in *h<e> town, in. the coumtry makss anything like general! education impossible. Secondjly, wo! 41 agree that .moral primers wouldf be accepted! by tlw community at large, only. on condition that there should be no discussion of -blie oantenits between teacher and taught! If ..these wfre nothing else against the proposal, this alone, ito my mind, condemns it utterly. My experience as a teacher of soiniti fifteen' years' standing is, that wlhere a proper relation. exists between the teacher .and *he.iniipil,»ii!ftel%ent questioraing on the part of the .child* is the soul of teaching. Thanks, ' alas, to our present over-crowded 'syllabus, the .. teridency now certainly, is. fo repress any original thought oil 'tho '.part of tlip pupil ; but do we wish to encourage this ? ' Can. . wd imiagMie that it wouM be a^od .beginning to ..araor&li lessoafor the.t^aoher to say, •'Children,., whgjajigflc - yoj^jmdWstain!d'. wtoa*^ y. ot L '%*& il^9t!?fovL ratitff Wrio amount "a*tk" mo 'to t'xpiaih it .to you,"' To make aay moral lesson effective you must have moral character ra your teacher. I hea-ntily agree with tihose pi you who'willl at. once reply, " But we must ifcnisist on "moral character in all our teachers." But how is this desirable end 1 to be attained?" Insist on any moral test for _ a .public .ppsiibion, and all you are likely to dlo i* to, out out ajfew conscientious objectors, and most certainly include all tto hypocrites. I believe a great mainy of oui> teachers already; are truly moral or religious, call it which you will ; '«aiidi to them we need give no moral instructor. They will amculeate moral precepts and! give their pupils a love. and admiration for all that is noble and sublime, • without the aid of a, special lessonbook. Whether they are giving a lesson in mathematics or .on ethics, they will find many an opportunity to point a . moral, and, if they are only relieved of the strain of a crammed syllabus, will delight to develop in tlie boys and girls committed to their charge a love of truth, a disdtain of falsehood, and an hatred of "evil and vice, which will, in after-life, make them in their turn benefactors of their race. The immoral or. thoughtless teacher, on the other hand, whether you furnish him with & moral text-book or not, will never succeed in 1 giving his , pupils a respect for morality.. It seems, therefore, to me, that instead . of advocating special: moral instruction in our public school books, we should rather advocate^ — (1) The just and equable scale of salaries, that we may attract and retain in the public service the best possible teachers, male and female ; (2) the retention of children at school to a much more advanced age than at present, so .that more time may be given for them to master the subjects ' necessary to fit them for the battle of life; (3) the improvement of the reading books used in the different Standards, a weedi.ng-out of much objectionable matter, and the introduction of good essays and quotations from our best writers ; (4) the teaching of political economy, and the sciencs of government to children in the higher' Standards. Surely in a country where we give every adult a vote, some such knowledge should be compulsory. '