THE ENGLISH EDUCATION BILL.

New Zealand Tablet, Volume XXXI, Issue 7, 12 February 1903, Page 16

THE ENGLISH EDUCATION BILL.

lip

HE English Education Bill passed its final stages and received the Royal assent in December last, but we have deferred referring to the measure because the cabled accounts of the numerous amendments and alterations it underwent prior to its ultimately passing into law were necessarily meagre and imperfect, and any comments made at the time could only have been speculative and conditional. When it is remembered that the Bill was under discussion in the country for a period of nine months, that it occupied no less than 55 sittings of the House of Commons, and that scores of amendments were proposed and scores of speeches made on it in both Houses of Parliament, it will be apparent that only by careful attention to the latest and fullest information is it possible to arrive at a correct and adequate idea of the nature and scope of the measure as it now stands upon the Statute Book. Home papers now to hand give the full text of the new Act in its final form, and we propose to explain briefly the nature of its provisions, the more important of the alterations it has undergone since its first introduction, its value and importance for English Catholics, and its practical significance for ourselves. The Act is designed to effect a complete revolution and reform of the whole educational system of England, but our interest is naturally focussed on the provisions dealing with the assistance to be given to the voluntary or denominational schools under the scheme, and it is to this aspect of the proposals that our remarks will be confined.

The new Actestablishes one local authority — the county or borough council— for all public elementary schools in the country. It is through this authority that all payments are to be made to the various schools within the area of its jurisdiction, and, so far as the secular education is concerned, all schools, whether elementary, secondary, or technical, and whether denominational or otherwise, are to be under its control. In order to simplify the work of administration each local authority is required to appoint an education committee, a majority of whose members shall also be members of the local body ; and it is on these education committees that all the management and control of the schools, so far as secular instruction is concerned, will really fall. The syllabus, the text-books, the apparatus of the •schools ; the number, qualifications, and wages of the teachers ; the hours for religious instruction, the repair or enlargement of existing schools, and the erection of new schools, will all form part of the province of the local education committee. Provision is indeed made for the appointment of six managers to do the actual work ; but, except for their control over the religious instruction in the denominational schools, the managers are little more than agents to carry out the wishes of the committee, and two of them are actually appointed by the Committee. For the purposes of the Act schools are practically divided into two classes — viz., provided schools, i.e., State Bchools established by the local authority, and non-provided schools, i.e., voluntary or denominational schools ; and in the matter of payment both provided and denominational schools are placed on the same financial basis, and, so far as ordinary maintenance and working expenses are concerned, are treated with absolute equality. Each receive their fair share of help both from the Imperial Exchequer and from the rates and the capitation grant, and other aids are meted out equally to both classes of schools. There is still one inequality, inasmuch as the first cost of erecting denominational schools has to be paid by the denomination concerned, whereas the cost of building provided schools is defrayed from the rates ; but, with this exception, the two classes of schools are placed on precisely the same financial footing. • For Catholics the crrrx of the measure lies in the provisions it makes for safeguarding religious instruction, and, as we have already said, it is around these that our keenest interest will naturally centre. The Act provides that all religious instruction given in the denominational schools shall be under the control of the managers, who have the exclusive power (subject to a right of veto on purely educational grounds by the local authority) of appointing and dismissing teachers. There are six managers, four of whom — called 'foundation' managers — are appointed by the trustees of of the school — i.e., by the religious authorities — and the other two by the local education committee. Under the Bill as originally introduced it was understood that the control of the religious instruction would be left solely in the hands of the foundation manageis, and the clause giving the whole of the managers a say in the matter was afterwards moved in Committee by Colonel Kenyon-Slaney, and constitutes the first part of the famous Kenyon-Slaney amendment. In its application to Catholic schools this amendment is most objectionable and altogether indefensible. Its operation may be harmless enough in the case of Anglican schools, where it would merely mean that the managers would consist of four Anglican clergymen and two of their own laity. In the case of Catholic schools, however, it means that the body of managers will be composed of four Catholics and two Protestants, and the two Protestants willl thus be called upon to control the course of instruction in a religion which they conscientiously believe to be false. As the foundation managers still form a large majority of the body, it is possible that the proposal may pan out all right in actual practice, but the principle is a bad one, and it is greatly to be regretted that, owing to the matter having been looked at from an almost exclusively Anglican stand-point, this thoroughly vicious amendment should have been allowed to remain part of the Bill. _ As some sorb of set-off to this disadvantage, it is gratifying to note that in two directions the Bill, as finally amended by the House of Lords, has substantially improved the Catholic position. In the form in which the measure

left the House of Commons no definite provision was made for the appointment by the local authority of any Catholic members to the education committees, which, as we have pointed out, are to play such an important part .in the administration of the scheme. It is obviously essential that there should be someone on those bodies to give voice to the needs and wishes of the minority, and the Lords did an act of simple justice when they amended the Bill so as to make provision for appointing to the committee, where it appears desirable, persons nominated by representatives of the denominational schools. A further concession was made to the denominational schools when the Lords accepted an amendment relieving denominational managers of the responsibility—which had been thrown upon them by the House of Commons—of making good all damage done to the buildings by ordinary wear and tear, the only repairs for which they are now liable being actual alteration or enlargement of the schools * It will be seen, then, that so far as the detailed changes which the Bill has undergone are concerned they have brought to Catholics some advantages and also some disadvantages. The advantages are that Catholic schools are put on practically the same financial footing as the State Schools, that Catholics have a majority of the managers who control the leligious instruction in their schools, and that provision is also made for Catholic representation on the Education Committees. The most serious disadvantage is the Kenyon-Slaney absurdity which gives the nominees of the civil authority a share in the control of Catholic religious teaching in the schools. But putting aside details and looking at the main principles of the Bill, it must be admitted to be a really great measure ; how great we can be3t appreciate by picturing to ourselves what our feelings would be if we had anything like such a scheme in operation in this country. This Bill, as the London ' Spectator ' remarks, has committed the nation beyond recall to the principles that the State has duties to perform that represent every aspect of education, that the ' general co-ordination of all forms of education ' (that is, amongst others, of the State schools and the denominational schools) is a national affair, and that denominationalism in schools is at least as consistent with State aid as undenominationalism. As we pointed out on the first introduction of the measure, it is a plain and candid recognition of the great principle that all the schools of the nation which are doing the necessary work of teaching the children of the people stand on an equal footing, have an equal claim upon the public funds, and have an absolute right to an equal wage for equal service. That, as we then said, is the very thing which the Catholics of this country have for so many years' been striving for — the very principle which our bishops so plainly and pointedly insisted on in their last Pastoral. When once that is conceded —as it is conceded in this new Education Act — on anything like fair and reasonable terms, the way is immediately opened up to an equitable, effective, and final settlement of this great question. • As to the special significance for New Zealand Catholics of the passing of this great Act we have little to add to what we said many months ago when the measure was under discussion in the Commons. As we then wrote : There can be no doubt that the success of this Bill will greatly strengthen our hands in the great battle which we have been fighting, and have yet to fight, in this country. The adoption of such a scheme by the greatest deliberative assembly in the world is a fact the moral influence of which it is almost impossible to over-estimate. It will surely at last stop the mouths of the political pigmies who prate about our claims being impracticable and impossible, aud will put an end to the foolish idea that the grant of justice to Catholics will undermine and split up our great (so-called) national system. Moreover, the English proposals constitute a splendid vindication not only of the desirableness but of the absolute necessity of denominational schools in the interests of religious freedom. * Whatever may be the origin of the present state of things,' said Mr. Balfour in introducing the measure, * we have as a community repudiated responsibility for teaching a particular form of religion ; we equally assume responsibility for teaching secular learning. As we have thus left to the

parent the responsibility in this matter surely we ought, in bo far as we can consistently with the inevitable limitations which the practical necessities of the case put upon us, make our system as elastic as we can in order to meet the wishes of the parent. Ido not stand here to plead for any particular form of denominational religion. Ido stand here to say that we ought as much as we can to see that every parent gets for his child the kind of religious education he desires.' These are noble words, and the victory of the great principles which they express should come as an inspiration and as an incentive to us to ' keep the flag flying ' and to throw ourselves into the old sbt uggle with untiring energy and with new-kindled courage and hope.