SCHOOLMASTERS’ CONFERENCE.

Globe, Volume VIII, Issue 900, 14 May 1877, Page 3

SCHOOLMASTERS’ CONFERENCE.

A conference connected with the Certificated Teachers’ Association, to consider certain resolutions as to the form which education should assume, was held on Saturday morning at eleven o’clock in the Durham street Wesleyan Schoolroom. There was a large attendance, including a number of ladies. Mr Mitchell moved that Mr Cunningham take the chair, which was carried. The Chairman said that the position ho had been asked to assume was a most important one, and he must say he felt utterly incompetent to undertake the task. He had, however, been for some fifty years directly or indirectly interested in the cause of education. He trusted that the great question of education would be promoted by their deliberations of that morning. He regretted very much that there were so many apologies for non-attend-ance that morning. Mr Hill, the secretary of the association, said that lie had sent circulars and special letters to the members of the Board of Education, but they had received apologies from Messrs H. R. Webb, W. Rolleston, H. J. Tancrcd, A, Duncan, J. Inglis, W. Montgomery, J. S. Turnbull, and Rev W. J. Habens. That from Rev W. J. Habens stated that he could not attend without compromising himself in someway from the position he held. The reasons of the members of the Board for not attending were that it would not be advisable to consider the matter until the new Bill was before the House.

One gentleman asked whether it was necessary for the secretary to road all the apologies. Mr Howard remarked that as they were called “fussy busybodies ” it was necessary to discover who were their sympathisers. Letters of apology were also read from Messrs Veel, Stevens, and Rev I. Zachariah. The Secretary said he had just received a telegram from the Wellington Association, which stated that the Wellington Association intended to adhere firmly to secular instruction. [Cheers.] Mr Howard, principal of the Normal School, said he regretted very much that the editor of the Press, was not present, as he had said he would be, to second and support the first resolution. This would have been a very pleasant revenge for them on account of the very bitter article of that morning, in which everything that was possible was attributed to them. They were there, lie took it, that morning as practical teachers, and he thought that there was a system of education which would suit all classes and all opinions. If they gave them religious instruction at certain times, and also inserted a conscience clause, this would meet all views. If they were going to throw the onus of religious instruction on the ministers, the State should not monopolise so much of the educational time of the children. He advocated the giving of religious instruction every day, because the evil agencies were at work every clay, and felt sure that the schoolmasters of Canterbury were quite competent to give it. Ho would be quite prepared to entrust his children to the religious care of the schoolmasters of Canterbury. If they were to banish the Bible they must banish reading and history lessons, and the secular scheme would thus upset the whole system of education. He would therefore move the first resolution as follows: — “ That education be free, compulsory, but religious and unsectarian, supported by a conscience clause.” Mr Cumberworth rose to second the resolution. He looked at it that if they took the whole week for secular instruction, the whole religious instruction would be crowded into the Sabbath, when it would be impossible to give it efficiently. What they meant by the word “religious” was that they should proceed as they had been going on, viz., the history of the world taught from the Bible. If they were believers in the Bible they would be losing t he history of the world for the first three or four thousand years by putting it out of the schools. He could hardly suppose

that anyone wished to have only the three It’s taught without the history of the world being taught from the Bible. If they carried out the secular system they w'ould have to revise their system entirely. But by losing the Bible they lost the great agent of morality, the great moral guide. He had always found that by Bible teaching ho could better reach the hearts of his scholars, and ho could not think for one moment that it would conduce to the moral welfare of the scholars to exclude the Bible.

The Rev. H. B. Cocks said he should like the Avord “religious” expunged and the word “scriptural” inserted. By this every one could agree to the resolution. As to the Bible in the schools, he trusted that the day would never come when the Bible would be expelled from their schools. [Cheers.] They could all, he thought, meet on the broad platform of the scriptures, and Avith a conscience clause equally binding upon the teachers and the children, scriptural teaching could be given with safety in their schools. If they banished the Bible from their schools they w'ould bo unable to teach morality Avhen the great standard of morality —the Bible —was Avithdrawn.

Mr Howard said ho cvould be quite willing to accept the alteration as suggested by Mr Cocks. Mr Gr. L. Lee said he thought that the first resolution wus one which should bo discussed at a political meeting, and not at one Avhich Avas ostensibly a meeting of teachers. It seemed to him that it Avould be inexpedient to discuss the matter further at present, and he AA'ould move, “ That the meeting pass to the next resolution.” This Avas seconded by a gentleman in the body of the room. The Rev. W. Morlcy said be objected to the amendment, because, though teachers, they Avere also part of the State as citizens. They had therefore a perfect right to consider the matter, even if it AA'ere ns the mover of the amendment said a political matter. He thought that if the Avord “ religious ” or “ scriptural ” Avent forth the outside public might get an erroneous idea of Avhat they wanted. All they desired was that the Bible should not bo excluded from their schools, and that it should be read under a conscience clause, [Hear, hear.] He thought they could Avell afford to leave the matter in the hands of the local school committee.

Mr Baldwin quite agreed with the amendment of Mr Lee. So far as he was concerned as a teacher, he should teach whatever the Government paid him to do. Rev E. G. Penny contended that the amendment was out of order and unconstitutional. It was more of the character of a resolution rather than an amendment. He would ask the chairman whether the amendment could be received as a point of order. The Chairman said that he did not think that it was an amendment, but it had better be put and got rid of. The amendment was then put and negatived. Mr Baldwin moved as a second amendment —“ That education bo free, compulsory, and secular.” He would be quite willing to teach religion if the Government paid him for it, and by the amendment he had proposed the burden would fall on the right shoulders. Bov E. G. Penny objected to the amendment being put at all, as it was a direct negative of the resolution now before them. Mr Baldwin would then alter his amendment by putting the words “secular” in place of “religious” instruction. Ho bad boon a teacher for twenty-five years, and had always found the religious difficulty the greatest bugbear in the way of education. He would far rather see denominational leaching at once, rather than the proposed system. Of course if a man gave his ideas of the Bible to the children, it would bo of course tinged with his bias. He hogged to move the amendment.

Air W. R. Mitchell seconded the amendment.. The introduction of religious education into their schools would cause the greatest possible confusion in their schools. They had in their schools teachers of all denominations, and bow could it bo expected that they would be able to so teach religion as to meet the approval of all. He would ask bow they were going to draw the line as to where religious instruction was to begin and where it was to end. If this conference wished to do well for the cause of education, lot them be content with the Bible being read in the schools, and not bring before the public again the old denominational fight. Air Elwin wished Mr Baldwin to add to his amendment the words “and that Scriptural History be taught as a subject for examination.” He thought this would meet all views. Those who wanted secular instruction were united, but the advocates of religious instruction were not. Religion also, ho might say, could not be taught in the schools ; it was innate; some children had it and some had not. [Laughter.] He contended that it would be much better to let the Bible history be taught as a subject tor examination, and not have introduced into their schools dogmatic teach-

mgs. A teacher said that lie looked at it in this way : If teaching religion would keep the children from the reformatory and the prison they would all go in for it. What the State’s duty was, it seemed to him, was to make the children good citizens. This was what was wanted.

Mr Baldwin said that he would accept Mr Elwin’s suggestion. Bov. Charles Fraser said that what he hoped the influence of that meeting would bo was to retain the Bible in their schools. If the teachers of Canterbury could come forward there, and tell them that the use of the Bible in the schools, which was now general, had been of use, they would exercise a great influence. He certainly could not see why, because men could not agree, that they should exclude the Bible from their schools. But let them look at the fact that the laws of England were very much differed over. Therefore, if their secularist friends held, that because people differed on anything it should at once be excluded, it would follow as a matter of course that medicine must bo abolished, as it was well known that doctors differed. He was very much pleased to be present that day, and felt that by banding together to retain the Bible in their schools they would bo doing a great work. Mr Bishop said that he would plead on behalf of religious education on the ground of its past success. He had seen the working of the old denominational system, and whatever might have been its defects there was no one who would get up and say that there had been complaints against the religious teaching. After a deal of labour a commission, composed of bis Honor the late Superintendent and Mr Tancred, in 1863 had reported on the old scheme, and there was no complaint of the religious teaching. For the past thirteen rears religious instruction had been given in their schools, and it had been a great success.

If New Zealand were polled he believed that nine-tenths of the inhabitants would bo in favor of religious instruction. [Mr Baldwin —“ No, no.”] So far as he took it His vocation Avas not to spend four or five hours a day cramming knowledge into the children Avhich might or might not bo of use to them. He took it that they Avere bound to look to the moral training as Avell as the mental. By taking the Bible out of the teacher’s hands they deprived him of his most efficient weapon. They could not afford to do this, and he felt sure that there Avas a platform upon which all teachers could meet and teach the Bible. He supported the resolution. Mr Ford said that all denominations had a perfect right to have their opinions as regarded religious matters respected. They were trying to introduce a system which would not accord Avith the view's of a large section of the community, because they w’ere endeavoring to force on them their views. All had an equal right as all paid taxes, and therefore it would be far better to have a system of secular education.

Mr Hill thought that what they had to consider was, Avhethcr the teachers of Canterbury Avere of opinion that religious instruction should be giA'cn. He had always opened Avith prayer and closed with prayer. He had Jcavs, Roman Catholics, Dissenters, &.C., Avho were present during these prayers and lie had never had a single complaint. Because they Avcnt about the work in a different manner it Avas not to be said that they Avere all not Avorking to the same end of morality. But Avhile lie said this ho said let the ministers bo kept out of the schools. Let the teachers be the ones to give scriptural instruction ns a reading book, as a history, but his experience as a teacher AA'as not to let the ministers come near the school at all. Let the teacher prepare them and ground them and let the dogmatic teaching be carried on by the ministers in the Sunday schools. He thought that they could not afford to lose religious instruction out of their schools, because all the teaching of history AA r cnt to prove that in all ages the religious had been a part and parcel of the instruction of youth. He Avantcd the Bible to be used in their schools as a standard of morality and not as a system of dogmatic teaching. The Chairman read a resolution passed by the Rangiora school committee, to the effect that they trusted that the new Education Bill AA'ould contain a clause to the effect that the Bible should be read daily in the schools, Avith a conscience clause to ulloav those parents who did not Avish their children to be present to take means for their absence.

The amendment was then put. About half a dozen hands only were held up for it. The resolution was then put, and carried by a large majority.

Mr Mitchell then moved —“ That no certificates be issued to teachers on examination for certification higher than the second class, the first class to be attained by success as a teacher and length of service only.” Mr Bishop seconded the motion. After some discussion, the Conference adjourned for an hour. On resuming, the second resolution was again discussed, and eventually passed in a slightly amended form. Professor Bickerton proposed the third resolution, “That inspectors bo appointed by a central authority, and one shall be appointed a chief inspector, so as to render the system of examination uniform throughout the colony.” He had been himself thoroughly convinced of the necessity of uniformity in inspection, by his own experience as a member of the West Christchurch School Committee, by the varied reports of two different inspectors; and it was also desirable that the standards of education should have the same value in all parts of the colony, and this could only be secured by a chief inspector, who would have supervision of all examinations. Another reason in favour of a chief inspector was that he would be able to discern specialities among his subordinates, which could be utilised in examinations, each having his own special subject. The RcvW. Morley seconded the resolution, which was carried. The Rev W. Morley then proposed —“That it is desirable that the inspectors appointed should bo chosen from those who have had experience in tuition.” Air C. Howard seconded the resolution. Considerable discussion ensued, during which the Rev J. Gumming stated that he considered it would be bettor if inspectors were highly educated gentlemen who had not been teachers; be was afraid that teachers were too apt to have crotchets, which would be very unpleasant when found in The Rev. Air Alorlcy’s motion was carried. Air Cumbcrworth proposed the fourth resolution—“ That it is desirable to take steps to form a national union of teachers.” Hitherto the overtures of the teachers of this province towards those in Otago had been unsuccessful, but now that the political divisions had been altered, be had great hopes of what they would all agree was very desirable, a national union being formed. Air Elwin seconded the resolution, which was carried.

The Rev. James Gumming proposed the fifth resolution—“ That no system of education would be complete without the establishment of secondary middle class schools, where the children from the public schools can proceed, and thence to the university.” Mr Hill seconded the resolution, which was carried unanimously. Mr Howard said, with a view of giving a practical effect to the fourth resolution, he would propose, “That the conference committee should have the authority of this meeting to make overtures to other associations.”

Mr Woodford seconded the resolution, which was carried unanimously. Telegrams had been received from the various associations throughout the colony expressing concurrence with the resolutions, except that the Wellington Association favored secular education; also from Mr Hammond, wishing the movement every success."