thirds of the scholars) there is paid only 5s. | proached, 'the colossal man' would doubtless per child, where the applicants are more than have outgrown the need of schooling. What50 only 58. or 48., and where above 100 only | ever fragment of an argument remains in the 4s. or 38. The capitation grant, therefore, Commissioners' figures is satisfactorily aninstead of amounting to 240,000l., as esti-swered by themselves :mated, would not exceed 150,000l. And the whole instead of being nearly 2,100,000l.,' would be, on the basis supplied by the Commissioners themselves,— expense, 'The Public Grant,' he says, 'may, in a few years, increase, with corresponding results, to 1,000,000l. or 1,200,000l., making, in its progress, adequate provision for the education of youth from school-age to manhood; but at that point, by well-devised antecedent expedients, its increase may not only be arrested, but this annual aid may be converted into an instrument, in the hands of skilful adininistrators, by which all the rest of the work may be done in the most apathetic as well as in the most earnest districts. That result attained, a new series of operations may commence, by which the charge of public education may be gradually transferred from the Consolidated Fund to the local sources of income, school pence, and subscriptions.'(Letter to Earl Granville, on Commissioners' Report, p. 7.) 6 'If the money be wisely and successfully applied, it is to be desired and expected that indefinitely for some considerable time the number of schools seeking to avail themselves of the public aid will increase, as improved education is more and more widely diffused, and operates more powerfully on the public mind. One legitimate result of this, however, in a system which is based on assisting local exertion, ought to be a higher and more practical feeling of their duty by parents to provide for the education of their children; with this may be reasonably expected an increased liberality, on the part of the higher classes, to assist their poorer neighbours in the discharge of this great duty, and thenceforward we should have a right to look for a decrease, gradual at first, and then rapid, in the demands on the public purse. We believe this to be the true and not visionary view under which the expense of giving aid to education and its tendency to increase are, of themselves, to be regarded.'-(Report, i. p. 313.) Mr. Senior says: think that the general improvement in education 'I am convinced that the nation in general and its extension in inspected schools to 1,211,824 children are cheaply purchased for 572,8571. tation of rapid, enormous, almost unlimited ina year. The real source of alarm is the expeccrease. This was mainly occasioned by Mr. Horace Mann's computation, introduced by him Council in their report of 1859, which anticiinto the Census, and accepted by the Privy pates the presence of 3,000,000 children in the inspected schools, to be taught by 30,000 certificated teachers. Mr. Mann, however, in his examination before us, admitted that his calcuRe-lation was not that of those who might be expected to be at school, but of those who might be wished to be at school.'-(Suggestions, p. 15.) The scheme by which the expenditure is to be arrested and reduced once more from 1,200,000l. to 750,000l. is set out in Sir James's 'Letter to Earl Granville on the vised Code. Already, we learn from Mr. Lingen's evidence in 1859, the buildinggrants which, during two or three years after 1853, when the rate of aid for buildings was raised, increased very much indeed," have been, for the last two or three years, pretty well stationary.'-(Evidence, 567.) The last Report of the Committee of Council shows that, in 1860, there has been a decrease of no less than 20,4677. in the building and furnishing grants, besides a saving of 8,2801. on Reformatory Schools. The same authority informs us that the net increase of expenditure for the year 1860 over that of the year 1859 is 12877. Surely this does not give a very alarming prospect for the future. At this rate of progression it would take exactly a thousand years to reach the two millions which the commissioners brandish before our eyes as the ultimate amount of the grant. Before Dr. Temple's five millions were ap The highest point that the parliamentary grant can reach will be equal to the cost of two ships equipped as the Warrior.' We must have 'Warriors,' but we must also have education. The abandoned paper-duty would have covered the whole. The second defect of the present system, as alleged by the Commissioners, is its inability to assist the poorer districts.' This is a real difficulty; but let it not be exaggerated. If three years ago there were only 120,305 children in the whole of England and Wales, among rich and poor, who were without any schooling (Rep. i. p. 293), we cannot but think that the pictures which are sometimes drawn of youthful ignorance must be overdone. If, according to the Commissioners' statistics, there are only 120,305 untaught, and no less than 100,000 of these are the children of out-door paupers (Rep. i. p. 381), who, as we have said, may be dealt with by an immediate legislative enactment, there remain only 20,305 to be absorbed in our present National or British schools. Certainly the greater part of this small sum total must be found in towus; and if this is so, the poor rural parishes do get education in some way or other, if not by the help of the State. Many plans have been suggested for meeting this difficulty. Sir James Kay Shuttleworth has his proposal (Evidence 2369), Mr. Tufnell has his proposal (ib. 3341), Mr. Fraser has his proposal (Rep. ii. p. 121), Mr. Senior has his scheme (Suggestions, p. 55), and the Revised Code makes some efforts in the same direction. But every year there issue from the Training Colleges so many new masters and mistresses that serious fears have been expressed lest the market should be overstocked with them. What are these teachers to do? As soon as the larger parishes are supplied, they must be contented with the humbler work and the lower salaries of the smaller parishes. When they have done this, the State funds begin at once to flow into those parishes. In this manner the area of the Education Committee's operations becomes enlarged each year. Every year an army of a thousand teachers is sent forth, which gradually, but inevitably, must occupy every village which is capable of maintaining more than a dame's school. Mr. Scott, the intelligent and experienced Chairman of the Wesleyan Education Committee, points out that the necessitous districts cannot have good schools until there are raised up schoolmasters and schoolmistresses in sufficient numbers to take charge of the schools. He thinks that, as soon as schools have been set up in the less necessitous places, religious motives will lead men to give help to the adjoining poorer districts, and thus he thinks that the present system of Government assistance will in time sufficiently pervade the whole country. (Evidence, 2127, 2128.) The present system goes upon the plan of meeting money locally raised with public money, and thus an annual outlay of two millions is obtained at a cost to the State of *We have already in our last number (vol. ex.) called attention to the plan of the authoress of the Workhouse Orphan,' the leading principle of which is to combine parochial with voluntary support (a point which it is very necessary to bear in mind when considering her scheme), and to receive, the children's weekly allowance from their respective unions, in aid of the houses which she desires to establish. Even thus the duty is too important to be intrusted to voluntary efforts alone. The State has no right to exact such an effort on the part of individuals, when, by an alteration of its own regulations, it has the power of applying a fit remedy to the evils of the present system. from 750,000l. to 800,000l. But if once the State were to supply the deficiencies of local energy and liberality, the majority of parishes would immediately become in their own estimation poor parishes, the greater part of the two millions would be lost, and the State would have to take upon itself the burden of supporting all or almost all the schools in England and Wales. And yet, perhaps, something might be done by lowering in the poorer parishes, with vigilance and discrimination, some of the requirements of the Committee of Council, which are found very onerous. The third defect of the existing system is, according to the Commissioners, a partial inadequacy of teaching,' which is explained to mean that the junior classes are neglected both by teachers and inspectors, and that elementary work is not taught as it might be taught. This is a very serious charge. It amounts to this, that neither teachers nor inspectors do their duty. It is not surprising that Mr. Lowe should have considered that so great a defect justified a change of system. We will examine the grounds of this complaint. First for the inspectors. Is it true that they do not examine the lower classes? We have made inquiries of inspectors and of schoolmasters. and of school-managers, and the answer has been that they examine them with as great care as that which they bestow on the first class. The Commissioners state frequently that they do not. But on what grounds do they make the statement? There is not a particle of evidence to that effect in the Reports of their Assistant-Commissioners, nor in the replies to their circular of questions, nor in their viva voce evidence. Their argument is most curious. They quote a description by Mr. Brookfield of an excellent,' a good,' and a 'fair' school, and approve. his standard. (Rep., i. p. 238.) They also quote a passage of Mr. Cook's, which we have already transcribed, giving an account of how much a boy of fair average attainments at the age of twelve years in a good school has learned.' They then remark:-'It is obvious, from the descriptions which we have quoted, that the inspection is an inspection of schools rather than of scholars, of the first class more than of any other classes.' How is it obvious? Because, 'speaking generally, the inspector's description of an excellent school turns, like that of Mr. Cook, upon the performance of boys of eleven or twelve years old.' But Mr. Cook was not describing what an excellent school is, but was specifically stating what a boy of twelve years in a good school has learned.' And how can it possibly follow from an inspector incidentally describing what a boy of twelve | whatever may be the character of the other has learned, that inspection is of the first classes which help to compose it.' Of course class more than of any others'? And how it is a matter of the greatest ease; but no can such an inference be based on Mr. Brook-inspector would write 'good' for 'bad' unless field's words, when he says in plain terms, in he was half insensible.' If Mr. Arnold only describing an 'excellent' school, Whatever means that a good first class raises a preposis taught throughout the school is well taught session in the mind of the examiner in behalf and judiciously graduated to each class, ac- of the whole school, it may well be true; but cording to its measure, down to the little the prepossession would only exist until the inarticulate learners of the alphabet'? lower classes were examined and were found to be ill-taught. From Mr. Cook and Mr. Brookfield the writer of this part of the Report passes to Mr. Norris. Mr. Norris in unadvised and ill-chosen terms had said 'School-teachers seem to have a right to ask that their success be measured by the proficiency of their first-class children. In the best schools the discipline is often imperfect, the reading and writing awkward, and the arithmetic inaccurate in the junior classes. No very lasting impressions can be made on the mind or habits of child ten years of age. In testing the success of a school, therefore, by the conduct and intelligence of its former scholars, the teacher fairly claims that he should be held responsible for those only who were allowed by their parents to stay long enough to reach his first class.' (Minutes, 1859–60, p. 103.) The only viva voce evidence on the subject is that of Mr. Cook, Mr. Watkins, and Mr. Lingen. Mr. Cook says, 'All the inspectors try the ciphering very closely, and all the inspectors try the writing very closely. I do not know that the inspectors would consider themselves bound (I should not say that they were bound) to hear every child read, but to ascertain that they read well in every class.' a-(Evidence, 864.) Mr. Watkins says, We hear them all read, or the great majority of them, we see all their sums, we look at all their copybooks, and question very often the whole of the scholars, almost every child.'(Ib., 1042.) On this evidence an ingenious argument is formed in the following manner. Mr. Cook had said that he required four hours to examine a school of 150 children, but that he could get through the staple of the work in one hour and a half. The Commissioners, conveniently ignoring the first part of his statement, reduce one hour and a half to seconds, divide the sum so arrived at by 150, and find the result to be 36. Hereupon they write gravely, As only 36 seconds would be thus occupied in examining the reading, writing, and arithmetic of each scholar, the examination could be hardly otherwise than cursory.' Why did not Mr. Rogers save his colleagues from so ridiculous a blunder as this? He must have seen a school examined, and must therefore have been aware that while one class was occupied in reading, the other classes were occupied in writing and arithmetic, and vice versa, the whole hour and a half (or whatever time was employed) being fully occupied in the case of each scholar. The idea in the mind of the Commissioners seems to be that, as at the universities, each child is brought up before the inspector for his examination, while the rest are awaiting their turn in idleness. Mr. Lingen's evidence is passed over in silence: Mr. Norris's statement that the discipline of the junior classes is imperfect and their arithmetic (such as it is) inaccurate in the best schools, is wholly indefensible, as no school ought to be regarded as good where such defects exist. We should be sorry,' say the Commissioners, 'to see Mr. Norris's words construed into a claim on behalf of the teachers that they should not be responsible for any children under 10,' but they acknowledge that 'his words do not necessarily bear such a meaning; and that his meaning, though not clearly expressed, may have been that however a master may attempt to instruct his children, his teaching cannot be permanent in its effects if they leave him at an early age.' But if the Commissioners think that this may be all that the passage contains, it is difficult to see why they should find in it a proof of the tendency to judge a school by its first class only,' and a conclusive demonstration that inspectors as well as masters are inclined to measure the success of a school by the proficiency of its first-class children.' In fact we see nothing on which to rest this charge, as against the inspectors, except the following passage from one of Mr. Arnold's Reports: An inspector finding an advanced upper class in a school, a class working sums in fractions, decimals, and higher rules, and answering well in grammar and history, constructs, half insensibly, whether so inclined or not, but with the greatest ease if so in clined, a most favourable report on a school, 'I think that the inspectors are one and all alive to the necessity of looking to the lower forms. In their printed reports I think you will find that they constantly dwell upon that fact, namely, that a school is not to be measured by its higher forms only. The tendency, I imagine, in going into a school would always be to judge very much of its capabilities by its higher forms; but there certainly is not room to say that the inspectors are not fully alive to the necessity of looking to the lower forms.'-(Evidence, 428.) Thus Mr. Mitchell writes in his Report for last year: A master has lately apologised to me for the backwardness of his lower classes by stating he had devoted his time to the instruction of the eight or ten upper boys. Of course such excuse is not permissible, being, in fact, a simple recurrence to one of the chief difficulties inspectors had to meet with in the earlier periods of inspection.'-(Annual Report for 1860, p. 63.) cess possible under the present conditions of attendance;' and states that, in such a school as Rochdale Parochial School, even if a child never pass beyond the second .or third class, he will have been taught to read well, write fairly from dictation, and to make a simple calculation.' (p. 225.) Mr. Coode is compelled to say that teaching to read at its earliest stages is unduly neglected, and that this neglect is too often in proportion to 270.) Mr. Foster and Mr. Jenkins, taking the higher pretensions of the teacher.' (p. exactly opposite views as to the over-education of teachers, do not specifically complain of neglect of the junior classes; nor does Mr. The Commissioners seem to have sus- Cumin. Mr. Hare says, 'I have not detected pected, before the commencement of their any neglect of the lower classes as compared inquiries, that the junior classes were ne- with the upper, nor any abandonment of the glected; and they instructed the Assistant-less promising pupils to their stupidity and Commissioners to examine specially into the sloth.' (Ib., iii. p. 283.) Mr. Wilkinson says, matter. The judgment pronounced by theI certainly detected, on several occasions, a Assistant-Commissioners is therefore very important; yet it is not quoted by the Commissioners. The Assistant-Commissioners are Mr. Fraser, Mr. Hedley, Mr. Winder, Mr. Coode, Mr. Foster, Mr. Jenkins, Mr. Cumin, Mr. Hare, Mr. Wilkinson, Dr. Hodgson. Mr. Fraser speaks of 'the weak point in public schools' (whether under trained or untrained teachers) being the inadequate attention paid to the lower classes.' Elsewhere, however, he states that the present system is not defective in its primary stage, but in its secondary. It deals fairly with the pupils while it has them in hand, but it does not keep them in hand long enough; that is, it does not provide adequate night schools and reading-rooms. I have all along borne witness to the efficiency of our system of elementary or primary education, when it is worked with ordinary zeal and ordinary liberality.' (Rep. ii. p. 114.) It is difficult to reconcile these two statements. Mr. Fraser seems to countenance the popular objection with regard to the junior classes in dayschools, but to apply it to those which are taught on the old monitorial system, equally with those which are taught by certificated and pupil teachers. In his summary he states that the unsatisfactory condition of the lower classes results from the deficiency of teaching powers which is found particularly in small unassisted public schools.' (p. 117.) Mr. Hedley makes no complaint. Mr. Winder states, with proper reprobation, that the master frequently confines his own teachings to one or two upper classes, leaving the rest to the pupil-teachers; and he accounts for his being obliged' to do this by the youth. of the pupil-teachers. (Ib., ii. p. 226.) He holds, however, that the best public schools achieve something like the maximum of suc VOL. CXI. 4 disposition to put forward prominently a few select pupils; and, on the average, I am disposed to think the proficiency of the lower classes hardly bears the same ratio to that of the upper classes which it would do if the exertions of the teacher were equally distributed among all. This remark applies to masters. I think the level of instruction is more fair in girls' schools.' (p. 393.) Dr. Hodgson says, 'In some cases I have wished that more of the head teacher's time might be devoted to the younger classes. But this is a point on which it is difficult to judge without longer and more repeated observation than it was in my power to make.' (p. 541.) The language of the Assistant-Commissioners, then, is moderate, and such as all sensible men would approve. It amounts to a warning to teachers not to be carried away by the pleasure of instructing their advanced pupils, and a reproof to them for having in some cases done so. It must, in fairness, be said that this does not justify the strong assertions that have lately been made with regard to the neglect of the junior classes. In July last Mr. Low summed up as follows: Commissioners] is in some degree well founded, I think it probable that the criticism [of the because I never saw a public school in England where too much attention was not given to the upper classes. . . . . I can see no reason why the schools intended for the poorer classes should not be subject to the same influences. . . . . I do not expect to see the time when the same thing may not be said, with more or less justice, of the public education of the country.'-(Speech, p. 7.) Closely connected, but not to be confounded with this, is the complaint made by the Royal Commissioners, that the elemen tary subjects, reading, writing, and arithmetic, are disregarded. This complaint is based upon the reiterated charges of the inspectors, in which they urge on masters and mistresses the imperative duty of devoting themselves to elementary subjects. These charges are very strong, and they ought to be very strong, for, as Mr. Cook says, there is and always will be great danger lest teachers, of considerable ability and even energy, should neglect the somewhat mechanical and certainly most fatiguing work, of bestowing upon every section and every individual child that amount of care and systematic attention which is requisite in order to secure proficiencey in those elementary subjects upon which real progress in all teachers of elementary education principally depends.' (Min., 1857-8, p. 252.) It should, however, be remembered that urgency in enforcing this point need not be so much a proof of the teachers having neglected their duty, as of the inspectors fulfilling theirs. For, as long as human nature is what it is, such words of warning will never, under any system, be unnecessary. And those words, strong as they most properly are, have to be judged of by the side of such qualifying statements as these, which are culled from the last volume of annual Reports: 'There is good reason, as was the case last year, to be satisfied with the progress of schoolchildren in the subjects of their instruction, and especially in the elementary and more important subjects.'-(Mr. Watkins's Report, p. 40.) 'I think I see a decided tendency now going on to stick to what may be called necessary subjects. By necessary subjects, I mean reading, writing, spelling, religious knowledge, and arithmetic, and, in girls' schools, needlework' -(Mr. Kennedy's Report, p. 96.) The Parliamentary grant has placed within reach of the working population a sound although plain education for their children. I do not refer to the extent and variety of their studies, but to their knowledge of a few elementary subjects.'-(Mr. Stewart's Report, p. 121.) The three indispensable elements of education-reading, writing, and arithmetic-evidently receive, as they ought to do, the largest share of attention, and are most successfully inculcated.'-(Mr. Bowstead's Report, p. 162.) The result of the year's Report is, that reading is taught excellently well or fairly in 89 per cent., moderately in less than 11 per cent., and badly in per cent. of inspected schools; that writing is taught excellently well or fairly in 91 per cent., moderately in 9 per cent., and badly in about per cent.; and that arithmetic is taught excellently well or fairly in 83 per cent., moderately in 15 per cent., and badly in 1 per cent. of the same schools. It must be recollected that, ont of every 100 schools inspected, some 20 are not under certificated teachers, and these schools are almost invariably the worst. The Assistant Commissioners are divided in their opinions. The Commissioners quote some of their statements, and it is most proper that these statements should be put prominently forward; but it is at the same time desirable that the following passages should not be allowed to remain buried in vols. ii. and iii.: 'As regards disinclination to bestow the proper degree of attention on the elementary branches of education, I may say that, while I have found a disposition to prefer "higher subjects," any such disposition is held effectually in check by regard for the prosperity of the schools and the prospect of inspection.'-(Dr. Hodgson's Report, vol. iii. p. 541.) It is, however, certain that, so far as range of subject-matter goes, there is no tendency to aim at over-educating in the existing systems of public schools.'-(Mr. Jenkins's Report, vol. ii. p. 547.) * It is in the light of these facts and opinions that we must interpret the now famous passage of the Commissioners: "The great majority of the children do not learn, or learn imperfectly, the most necessary part of what they come to learn-reading, writing, and arithmetic.' This may mean very much or very little. What is imperfectly?' If it means that the majority of the children go away having learnt nothing or next to nothing of reading, writing, and summing, it is not true; if it means that they do not reach perfection in those arts, it is true; but it is not a ground for introducing a new system of instruction. Might not the same be said of our public schools and universities, substituting the words 'Latin and Greek' for reading, writing, and arithmetic ? The fourth and last defect which the Commissioners have pointed out in the existing system, may be dismissed in a few words. with it seriously. It is the pressure on the Mr. Senior says that it is difficult to deal central office. There are such offices as the Foreign-office, the Colonial-office, the Homeoffice, the Post-office, the office of the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel, the Church Missionary Society's Office. If these offices do not break down at their centre, there is no reason why the Educational Department of the Privy Council should do so. think that the complication of business might be readily reformed by what Mr. Arnold gently terms 'forms less multiplied' (Rep. iv., p. 74); by less circumlocution,' less redtape, fewer questions, and some curtailment Outsiders *See also Mr. Winder's Report, vol. ii. p. 219, and Mr. Hare's Report, vol. iii. p. 301. |