The National Schoolmaster.

SUMMARY.

N Saturday, December 2nd, Lord Hartington distributed prizes to the students who went up for the Oxford Local Examination at the London, Southwark, and Streatham Hill centres. His lordship said there was no doubt as to the importance of these examinations, and proceeded to describe the peculiar position of the middle classes in the matter of education :

He thought that there could be no doubt whatever as to the necessity and as to the importance of the work which the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, followed by the London and Dublin Universities, inaugurated now eighteen years ago, and which they have steadily continued up to the present time. The position of intermediate education in this country was somewhat peculiar. That portion of the middle classes who are not able to send their children to expensive public schools-and not of the middle classes alone, but also of that portion of the working classes who desire to be able to procure for their children some higher education than is to be found in elementary schools-that part of education alone had been almost entirely neglected by the Legislature. Neither Government nor Parliament had hitherto considered it necessary to take any steps by means of which it would be secured that the endowed schools and private schools which undertake the education of the great middle class of this country should give a satisfactory and complete education to that portion of our countrymen and countrywomen whom they professed to educate.

In Germany the State took charge of these examinations, but here it had been neglected, and the universities volunteered to undertake the task :

That was not the case, and had not been the case in all countries. In Germany, for instance, where perhaps the subject of education was as well understood as in any country in Europe, the State provided for the education of students leaving school an examination which, he believed, was compulsory upon all persons who seek any kind of public employment, and which, practically, is becoming compulsory with regard to all persons seeking employment that requires any amount of education. This had been done in Germany, and no doubt with great results upon the education of that country. Here it had not been done. But here our great universities had stepped in to do that which had hitherto been neglected by the Government and the Legislature. The universities had attempted by means of these local examinations to provide a standard by which the efficiency of those institutions may be tested and made known to the public, and to provide the pupils of those schools the means of proving that they had availed themselves of the advantages placed within their reach, and that they had

He could not say how far the universities had succeeded in their attempt, nor whether the result of any system of education could be adequately tested by a system of examination :—

How far had the universities succeeded in the task which they had set before them. selves? That was a question the answer to which ought to be most interesting, but it was one to which he did not feel competent to give any positive answer. He had had an opportunity of looking at some of the reports of the delegates of the universities who had conducted these examinations, and he thought there could be no doubt those reports showed that the character of the intermediate schools had been raised considerably since the institution of these examinations eighteen years ago. The very last report published showed, he thought, that there was still much to be desired in the character of the education given by many schools. Another question was how far was it possible for the plan which the universities adopted to succeed in accomplishing the desired result? That again was a question very difficult to answer. It involved a question of great extent, upon which the highest authorities differed, namely, how far was it possible that the result of any system of education could be adequately tested by a system of examination. The universities had done what lay in their power; what remained to be done depended very much upon the public, who should adequately second the efforts of the universities.

The repeal of the 25th Clause of the Education Act of 1870 has placed the Stockport School Board in a peculiar position. The following paragraph taken from the School Board Chronicle explains the matter :—

The Stockport School Board, which has no board schools, finds occasion to express a very strong feeling of regret that the power is now to be taken away from the board of paying fees under Section 25 of the original Act. Stockport is a large and populous town, containing necessarily a good many poor parents with large families, who cannot afford to pay school fees, and these parents will now in every case be compelled to apply to the Poor-Law Guardians for payment of their fees as if they were paupers. We cannot regret the repeal of the 25th Clause, but it is impossible not to feel some sympathy with the Stockport Board in their regret that they are no longer in the position to consider the case of indigent parents with respect to fees. But the board have themselves to thank for the position in which they are placed. They have not given the school board system a fair chance in Stockport. Such a town ought not to be absolutely under the denominational system of education. No doubt the board might easily have effected, long ago, the transfer of one or more of the voluntary schools of the town to the board, and so have gained the right to remit fees while they gave the inhabitants an opportunity of judging of and enjoying the advantages of the board school system. As the matter stands, some fine day the Stockport Board may find itself suddenly extinguished by a captious resolution of the Town Council under Mr. Pell's clause.

Some correspondence has taken place in the Standard concerning the salaries paid to teachers by the London School Board. The following letter from a teacher contains observations which it would be well for the clergy to consider attentively :

Sir,—I should like, with your kind permission, to say a few words with regard to that part of the Rev. A. S. Herring's letter respecting the salaries paid by the school board. Miss Taylor asks the clergy, he says, "to exchange professional incomes with board teachers." "This I would readily do," says the rev. gentleman, "for do not the teachers of St. Luke's receive their £250, £420, and even £500 per annum, and

I venture to assert that £50 or £60 each was the utmost expended for training." Now what has the amount expended for training to do with the question? As well might he argue that his own salary, or the salary of any other clergyman, should be equal to or greater than that of the Archbishop of Canterbury, seeing that in all probability no more might have been expended on the archbishop's training than upon that of the vicar of St. Paul's. It is well known that the board pays its teachers, in most case, according to a certain scale, whereby the teacher holding the highest certificate gets the highest pay. Would the clergy like to be paid according to the place they obtained in the university class list? Had the clergy of the Church sought as earnestly to retain the services of her best teachers by increased salaries as the board has to obtain hers, it would have been better for the Church at large. The Church schoolmaster, as a rule, is a man who, for love of his Church and work, would willingly sacrifice a great deal in her interests. What have the clergy, as a body, done for Church teachers? In how many cases have they, in face of these increased salaries by the board, raised the stipends of their teachers? At the present time the average income of Church teachers is barely £100. Is it any wonder, then, that they should go over to the board? The only wonder is that so few have gone. I believe I am but stating the opinion of the majority of my profession when I say that unless the Church makes a very powerful effort to improve the financial and social position of her teachers ere long she will lose the best of them, and then the secular party will have the gain, because as teachers on the board they will to a very great extent be debarred from giving that definite religious instruction which they feel so much pleasure in imparting, and which must in the end prove so beneficial to the community at large. The present election bids fair to be a great fight for religious liberty and for the interests of voluntary schools in particular, and there is little doubt that the next will be still more perilous, unless managers, both lay and clerical, become more active in our interests.-Yours faithfully, W. A. SMITH.

In a recent report by Mr. Heller of his visit to the Banbury teachers he remarks there were many present who, on their own confession, had never seen the Schoolmaster." We believe Mr. Heller, before he became secretary of the National Union, was the editor of this paper, and we believe he is one of the shareholders. It is also generally understood that a majority of the members of the Executive Committee are shareholders in this paper. It would seem, therefore, that Mr. Heller's journeys are partly professional and partly commercial. Before confession comes interrogation; Mr. Heller must have inquired first if they took in the "Schoolmaster" before the response could come that they had never seen it. This commercial aspect of Mr. Heller's visits has a serious significance for teachers. It doubtless enables the proprietors of the paper to dispense with the services of a regular traveller. If the paper were the property of the Union, and its profits appropriated to such objects as the Orphan Fund, or the Provident Fund, we should say nothing about Mr. Heller's action. It is not fair, however, to take the subscriptions of some thousands of teachers, and appropriate them to the enrichment of a few.