[PUBLISHED BY ARRANGEMENT] BIBLE IN STATE SCHOOLS

Kaipara and Waitemata Echo, 3 July 1914, Page 5

[PUBLISHED BY ARRANGEMENT] BIBLE IN STATE SCHOOLS

TEACHERS' ATTITUDE

(BY MR D. M. YEATS, 2GATE HEAD

TEACHER HUTT DISTitICT Uiqil

SCHOOIi)

For a long time I had been antagonistic to tho introduction oi the Bible into our State schools, but, after considering the. proposals made by the Bible in State Schools League, and forming my own independent judgment of the overwhelming testimony to its success in those States of the Commonwealth into which it had been introduced, I, more than a year ago, came to the conclusion that the pro^ posal deserved my support. I notice it ha-1 been said that the testimony from Australia is worthless because it is given by teachers who say only that which they think will please their superiors. With this position Ido not., agree, and it cannot apply to tes'idjlonies given by others, such as Sir Harry Rawson, Governor of New South Wales, who said: "The Public Education Act showed that the statesmen who framed it had considered it very carefully, fairly and discriminately,- {for although they had very strongly laid down the rule that religious instruction in State schools was to be non-sectarian, they had, at the same time, opened the way for clergymen of every denomination to teach tbe children of their own Church." There are thany other testimonies from people quite independent of the Education .Department in Australia, such as the Hon. J. T. McGowen, when Premier of New South Wales, and these opinions cannot be thrust on one side.

The objection to our syllabus as over-crowded does not seem to me a valid one. There was a time when our syllabus was ligid and teachers had no choice of their own, but had to follow a fixed routine. Now, as pointed out by vtr Hogben, at the meeting of the N.Z.E.I. in Auckland last January, the syllabus is merely a suggestion of what work should be done, not a hard and fast set of regulations in each subject. Mr Hogben's view is bo'rno out by the action of our inspectors ,-for the last few years, who have been in the habit of saying, "It is the quality of the work we aie going to look at, not Ihe quantity done." Every headmaster "makes out his own general scheme of work, and if inspectors are satisfied with it, they examine within, ts limits. I have no hesitation, from vn experience of 35 year.s as a head* master in our schools, in saying that the introduction of Bible reading as part of the literary training of our children, and the visits of accredited teachers, will not interfere injuriously with the school syllabus of work.

Something has also been said about the Conscience Clause for teachers, hut as they are not being asked to teach religion, why ask for such a ciaase at all ? They are only asked to have the Bible lessons in the same way that they have any other reading lesson,' and deduce from them the moral and literary beauties therein to be found. The religious teaching will be given, under the League's proposal, not by State school teachers, but by the accredited teachers from the Churches, so that a teacher will be aole to say " I have no responsibility that lies with the Churches."

My own opinion is that if a Scripture reading lesson had to be taken it would be taken with all due reverence and respect by almost all thos9 engaged in the educational service, j The fact is surely convincing to us that in the States in which the system has been carried on in the Commonwealth of Australia not one teacher has been heard of who refused, for conscience sake, to take the required share in the work, nor ha? any demand for such a olause ever been made by the teachers, and this notwithstanding that the teachers have theii unions which put their grievances before the public and Parliament. What stronger refutation of the need of such a clause can be brought forward than this ? The fact that appointments by committees would be affected hy a teacher's religion seems to me very fai fetched. My opinion is that exactly the opposite effect will be produced, because as every church will have the riirht to take its own share in religi> ous teaching, there will not be tbe same necessity (as some allege has existed in the past) for appointing teachers belonging to any particular church. Ido not for a moment think that a teacher's religion would come l&to rf^isideration with a school committee any more than it does now. As a result of my 35 years' experience I deliberately express the opinion that if there had been some such system, as the Leagne proposes, included in our educational system, the benefits ihereunder would have been much greater and the rising generation Hiore moral under a non-secular

The suggestion that a Referendum is not suitable to a religious question hecauf-e the religious aspect is regardea as being held by the majority is first of all a plain admission that the present educational system is not approved by the majority of the Tpeuph-, but secondly, th- argument |ia S no force because theie is no attempt under the proposal to forethe minority t<> d.. vi.x thing to wh-cli they object. The parents of those children who do nor want thfrn t" read j;ible lemons or t., be vi.r.ed by Ministers will not int-rfer-a with hi the least, Th- mii.oir.y wdl haw, its rights respected, ] U3t as at tne present time, but with the difference, the majority will l.ay exactly the .same rights. Theie is no compulsion

in the matter at all. The suggestion that tho teachers are to [be compelled to give religious instruction is met with by the fact that thoy are not asked to do anything of the aoit. Ihoy are asked to give reading lessons taken from the best literature in the English langauage. I have gone carefully ov.-r these reading lessons .in the Queensland books*, studying tnem with a view of seeing how I would take them with a class. 1 nnd no difficulty in treating them as ordinary reading lessons, giving any necessary exnlanations as to meanings, without any religious comment at all, and I believe there are very few teachers in the whole of New Zealand who would find any more difficulty than I mylelf. Even for its literary value alone teachers should welcome the introduction of the Bible into our National schools. •L believe that thirty per cent of our teachers are heartily in accord with the proposals of the Bible in State Schools League.