NATURE 



169 



EDUCATIONAL ASPECTS OF FREE 

 EDUCATION 



A N innocent outsider would naturally suppose that the 

 ^^ discussion on a proposal for free education would 

 turn chiefly on educational and social considerations. 

 So long as the question was of merely academic interest, 

 this was, to a large extent, the case. It is true that 

 strong Churchmen viewed with distaste a change which 

 might increase the growing difficulty, found by volun- 

 tary school managers, of making both ends meet, or 

 might possibly even sweep them off the board altogether, 

 and that the enthusiasm of many partisans on the other 

 side for the remission of fees was heightened by the 

 hope that such a measure would give a new impetus to 

 the formation of School Boards. But, on the whole, 

 the disputants made at least an attempt in public to 

 discuss the matter in its bearings on the child, the 

 teacher, and the parent. The overburdened parent, the 

 pauperizing effect of partial remission, the child kept from 

 school because of his parents' poverty, the teachers con- 

 verted into tax-collectors — these were the stage properties 

 of the one party ; while the stock-in-trade of the other 

 side included the sacred necessity of guarding " parental 

 responsibility," and the assertion that no one values what he 

 does not pay for, and that to tax the hard-earned savings 

 of the respectable middle-class to free the education of 

 the children of the worthless and unthrifty was a Social- 

 istic proposal of the crudest kind. 



We now find that most of this talk was pure cant. It 

 ceased to be heard from the moment when free education 

 became a practical party question. To outward appear- 

 ance the contest over the Bill has become a kind of 

 Jerusalem race— everyone wishing to leave to someone 

 else the unpleasant task of formulating the criticisms 

 with which he secretly sympathizes, but to which fear of 

 his constituents prevents him from giving utterance. 



If we could induce the parties to break through this 

 conspiracy of agreement, we should find that, with a few 

 exceptions, the point on which the advocates feel most 

 keenly is the possibility of using the Act as a lever either 

 to destroy or to perpetuate for ever the voluntary school 

 system. In spite of the apparent calm, the battle between 

 the supporters of School Boards and voluntary schools is 

 raging fiercely below the surface ; and most of the amend- 

 ments put down for the Committee stage are certain to 

 represent attempts, more or less open or disguised, to 

 wrest the provisions of the Act to suit the purposes of 

 one or the other party. 



It must be confessed that this is to a great extent 

 natural. The Act of 1870 was a compromise : the present 

 Bill virtually reopens the question, and it is felt that, 

 whatever be the logic or want of logic in the argument 

 that Imperial grants should involve local control, the 

 time when large additional grants are being made to 

 voluntary schools is the time, if ever, to drive home the 

 question of popular management. We do not, then, 

 quarrel with those who feel that the opportunity must not 

 be lost of raising this question ; indeed, we should re- 

 spect them more if they raised it more openly. But we do 

 NO. IT 30, VOL. 44] 



protest against the almost total omission of all educational 

 considerations in the arguments used on both sides. 



It is time that the third party to the dispute— the real 

 friends of education — made themselves heard. Their 

 one object is to see that the educational benefits of the 

 measure should be maximized, and the incidental evils 

 minimized. They ask what is to be demanded in the 

 shape of increased efficiency in return for a new grant of 

 ^2,000,000 to school managers. Is a great part of it to 

 be allowed to be absorbed by the reduction of private 

 subscriptions and rates, or is it to be used to improve the 

 children's education, and make it a belter preparation for 

 their future industry ? 



In the rural districts, the grant in lieu of fees will 

 almost universally be in excess of the income now received 

 from fees. There will therefore be a surplus in the hands 

 of the managers, or manager— for very often these schools 

 are in the hands of one man. Where will this surplus go ? 

 In our opinion some method ought, if possible, to be 

 found of "ear-marking" it for education rather than for 

 subscribers' pockets. If this were done, nearly the whole 

 of the rural schools of England might be raised in cha- 

 racter. It would be possible, for example, to introduce, 

 with the aid of the new surplus, some simple teaching in 

 agricultural subjects, such as is recognized in the Code, 

 but is at present a dead letter ; for the increased grant 

 would be quite enough to pay a competent travelling 

 teacher to give such instruction in a group of schools. 

 If there were universal county or district school authori- 

 ties, it might be well to hand over the surplus grant into 

 their hands, to be used solely for the improvement of the 

 various schools on whose account it was paid. As, un- 

 fortunately, our organization is piecemeal, we are forced 

 to deal direct with each school, and we can therefore 

 only appeal to public-spirited managers to take care that 

 the children for whose education they are responsible 

 reap the full advantage of every penny which they receive 

 over and above the present fees charged. It is to be 

 feared, however, that in many cases the managers are at 

 the mercy of their subscribers, and many of them would 

 probably now welcome the proposal made by the Bishop 

 of London, but foolishly rejected by his clerical friends 

 on the late Royal Commission — that a certain minimum 

 of private subscriptions should be required by law in the 

 case of every voluntary school. If such a provision were 

 in force, school managers in the country would be saved 

 many anxious forebodings at the present time. 



The second point in the Bill on which educational 

 reformers should fix their attention is the limitation of 

 the benefits to children between five and fourteen. The 

 lower limit need not trouble us, and may be left to be 

 worried by the " poor man's " numerous friends. But 

 the upper limit should be resolutely opposed. It is 

 quite true that at the present time it is of comparatively 

 little importance — only affecting some few thousands of 

 children. But if one of the great objects of educational 

 policy is to lengthen the period of school life, the handful 

 of children at elementary schools above fourteen should 

 certainly not be fined for staying there ; if anything, they 

 should receive scholarships to enable them to do so. 

 In our opinion, moreovef, ex-seventh standard children 

 (who are not for the most part touched by the present 

 Bill) should be also admitted free, or at least sufficient 



I 



