« AnteriorContinuar »
gion; the University of Oxford, which is now essentially a place of religious education in accordance with the principles of the Established Church, prescribes and recommends the study of Aristotle's Ethics; if the University thought that a system of ethics unconnected with religion was necessarily hostile to religion, we presume they would not tolerate the Ethics of Aristotle *; but the true reason has been the unwillingness or inability of the Council to follow up and complete the plan on which the University was announced to the world. The fault is not the fault of individuals, but the defects of the proprietary system; mutual concessions are unavoidable when a number of people are united in one undertaking. When all parties are quite sure that they are fully agreed, the co-operation of the proprietary system may produce great results at a moderate expense to individuals. But in all large undertakings of this kind, there seldom appears to be complete good faith on all sides: some little objection is always at the bottom, which in time oozes out and becomes very troublesome. In our opinion, neither the London University, nor any other proprietary institution, will be able to effect any great change in education. The reasons have been already given in part, and there are others that will readily suggest themselves to those who are practically acquainted with such institutions.
We do not wish it to be inferred, that we think proprietary institutions are now doing no good, and can do no good. Our opinion is exactly the reverse: they are the index of a certain state of opinion, and show a certain amount of union, which display themselves in the formation and support of institutions, both for religious teaching and youthful instruction. It is thus that new sects in religion arise, obtain support, and gradually become powerful communities: it is thus that certain opinions on education gradually establish themselves in quiet, and at last proclaim themselves to the world by some outward evidence of union or co-operation. Both the London University and the King's College must be considered, in their present condition, and without reference to the mode in which each originated, as acknowledgments of the following principle-that institutions for education should be established in large towns, combining the advantages of a cheap day-school with a residence under the parental roof. The addition of the privilege of the choice of studies and the furnishing instruction in a greater variety of subjects may be considered as two other principles added to the practice of our universities and public schools.
* See Journal, No. III
All this is clear gain. But it is manifestly a great defect in the organization of the London University, that any branch of knowledge, and particularly such a branch as morals, should be excluded from its course of instruction. We think it is a defect in its constitution, that theology also (we do not mean either the particular doctrines of the Church of England, or those of any other denomination of Christians) should not be taught as well as other things. The practical wisdom of those who made exceptions to any branch of study may very fairly be questioned. The true friends to universal toleration would wish to see the principle of the London University carried into full effect; and the members of the Established Church would gladly see the King's College adhere strictly to the principle of being exclusively a Church. establishment, without making the least concession. It appears to us that an institution or a school should either profess and follow up strictly the religious discipline of the denomination of Christians for which it is intended; or, admitting the principle that religious education is not the province of school and college instruction, it should provide a course of instruction in morals. It is no answer to say, that religious instruction is the province of the parents, and should be conducted under the parental roof. Parents' views differ very much on such matters, and are often unsettled: many also have neither time nor inclination, nor the good habits necessary to make them proper instructors either in religion or morals; and some cannot even set their children the decent example of good conduct, which ought to be the first as it is the most important practical lesson of all. Under these circumstances, for an institution to teach neither religion nor morals, is an act of inconsistency only to be explained from the defects of the proprietary system, whenever individuals of all shades of opinion are associated in one undertaking. That this difficulty, however, is not insuperable we hope and almost believe.
Mr. Morgan suggests the establishment of a Society for the Promotion of Education, so far connected with the London University, as to have the use of the library for its meetings. A Society for the Promotion of Education might possibly be a useful institution, whether connected with the University or not; but the same difficulty starts up here as on every other subject which relates to the moral improvement of our country. Is the society to have for its object the Promotion of Christian Knowledge or not? The answer to this question may be, that there are already numerous associations who actively devote themselves to this object;
but none which devotes itself specially to the formation of good habits among all classes, more particularly the poor, and to the diffusion of all improved methods of instruction. A society which would limit itself to this object might do much good, and we think might number among its members many benevolent and able men. But in considering the formation of societies in London, we must bear in mind that a very large part of the members are attracted by any motive but that for which the society is founded: the gratification of vanity in some shape is that which influences a great many. In most societies such members, though perhaps a majority, can do no great harm, because, as they are generally unacquainted with those sciences or objects for which the society is instituted, they are compelled to yield the management of affairs to those who are better able to direct them. But unfortunately, education, like morals, metaphysics, and a few other kindred subjects, is a thing which all people fancy themselves qualified to pronounce upon; and we consequently fear, that in a Society for the Promotion of Education there would not be sufficient unity of purpose; there would be too many masters and planners. Many who are real friends to education, and would willingly give money to promote its diffusion and improvement, are themselves too little acquainted with the details of instruction to devise measures of practical utility; and again, those who have been instructors themselves are, we think, often much too strongly attached to their own views and methods, and think that there is only one way of doing one thing. There are, however, many ways of doing one thing, and sometimes all of them good ways. The proper object of a Society for the Promotion of Education is the diffusion of good methods of instruction, including, of course, a judicious choice in the matter to be taught. This can never be done by books or lectures it can only be done by educating young men for the profession of a teacher. The establishment of a normal school in London for this purpose would be an object worthy of a society; and we can see no good reason why it should fail, if a sufficient number of subscribers could be found. But we have considerable doubts if the contributions of individuals would be sufficient for the purpose; indeed, it is quite impossible to anticipate what would be the number of persons willing to support a Society for Education, entirely unconnected with religious instruction. That which individuals could only accomplish by making considerable sacrifices might be done by a government with the certainty of - success; but no friend to rational improvement would wish
to see a government doing more than contributing the money, unless the principle of toleration, the true not the fictitious toleration, were the basis of the system.
It may be asked, what would the young men do after being trained for the profession of a teacher? The answer is, that they would immediately find employment as teachers, unless our anticipations of the demand for good instruction are very much beyond the mark. In many districts, the greatest obstacle to the establishment of a school, is the want of good teachers: a school-room and pupils are often readily found, but a good teacher cannot always be had for money. We feel no hesitation in hazarding the assertion, that a wellorganized normal school would soon have more applications for teachers than it could supply. A young man educated at such a school, and backed by proper testimonials, would also run less risk in establishing himself as a teacher in a village or small town, on his own account, than if he were to go to a place where he was entirely unknown. It would often be the case, that the religious communities in different parts of the country would wish to have a teacher among them of their own persuasion, and, in this case, they could send a young man up to the school to receive the necessary training. The Model School of the British and Foreign School Society, in the Borough-road, London, has constantly some teachers there who are qualifying themselves for their profession; and we have no doubt that a residence of even a few months in the Borough School must be of very great advantage to these young men. But what might we not expect, if they were trained in as systematic a manner as in the Prussian schools, and subjected to regular examinations?
A normal school, or school for the education of teachers, necessarily implies also a school in which boys are taught; for it is by teaching the boys, and seeing them taught, that the future teachers are in a great measure to be formed. The instruction which they would themselves receive in the various branches of knowledge, would be confirmed and extended by the practice of communicating it to others. The income, whatever it might be, derived from the boys' school, would of course go towards the general expenses of the establishment. Besides this, the teachers who are preparing for their future profession would also contribute their share; for it would be a great mistake to offer gratuitous instruction to those who are to be the instructors of others. The tendency of this would be to invite the idle and the worthless by the offer of education as a charitable gift from the rich, and to * See Journal of Education, No. XII.
OCT., 1833-JAN., 1834.
repel the industrious who are anxious to raise themselves in the world. One of the most important things in securing a good body of teachers is, to draw them, as far as possible, from a class already possessed of industrious and moral habits; and, as the teacher is destined to operate on the condition of the poorest classes, it is proper that he should be from a class near enough to the poorest to know their condition, and yet so far above it as to have been exempt in his youth from the contamination, in this country, almost inseparable from the lowest states of society.
The objects which Mr. Morgan proposes to accomplish by the establishment of a Professorship of Education are explained more particularly in his pamphlet, to which we refer the reader. However opinions may differ, either as to the practicability or usefulness of what he recommends, there can be but one opinion on the benevolent views of the author. The only way, as it appears to us, in which his views could be carried into effect, as things now are, would be to attach a normal school to the London University School for the training of teachers of the higher class. Such an establishment would of course require a head, who might be styled, if desirable, the Professor of Education. If the London University could train teachers well, and qualify them to be good instructors for the middle classes of society, it would be extending widely the sphere of its usefulness, and, perhaps, it might thus ultimately add some small amount to its income.
Moral Education (Practical.)
THE education which an enlightened father and a good and tender mother give to their children is, no doubt, the most simple, the most natural, and the most conformable to reaAll the elements, all the principles of the first, and, at the same time, best possible education, are, and ought to be, given in the bosom of the family, by a father and mother capable of undertaking the duty.
The judicious love of the father and mother will always be the best formative principle of infancy, boyhood, and youth. If this pure and primitive affection be wanting to a young man, his moral education will be deficient, and his whole life be embittered by the consequences which will ensue.
It is in the family that man receives life, and it is there that he should be taught how to preserve it healthily and