Εικόνες σελίδας
PDF
Ηλεκτρ. έκδοση

In poetry he considers "Lucy Gray," "of imagination all compact," while "Little Jim" is "sermo merus." He remarks that infants appear often to degenerate when they first go into the upper school, and the bright first class of the infant school figures as the dunces of Standard I. in the next year." The period of transition, as he rightly says, is a trying one. He does not "discover that spelling is by any means the hardest thing to teach in schools," and will not give his vote "to those who are now seeking to bastardise the English language, cut up all its genealogical roots, and destroy all its associations." Mr. Brodie's report is one of unusual value, and is eminently readable.

SCHOOL BOARDS FOR THE MONTH.

T their meeting of October 30th, the London School Board were engaged in discussing a somewhat peculiar question. Sir Wm. Boreman, in the reign of Charles II., left an estate, the rents of which were to "maintain with meat, drink, lodgings, and education, twenty boys who should be born in Greenwich, the sons of seamen, watermen, or fishermen, especially of such loyal men as had served the king in his wars." The education was "to include reading, writing, and arithmetic; navigation, the Catechism, and doctrines of the Christian religion; the children to attend the parish church at the usual times of Divine service." Mr. H. Gover thought the founder meant to increase the number of Church people by educating the sons of Nonconformists in Church principles, and that it was a piece of flagrant injustice that such children should not be admitted into this school. It appears to us that the plan adopted by the Charity Commissioners is just and equitable, and that the alternative arrangement suggested by Mr. Lucraft would be simply defeating the object of the donor in making his gift. We are not at all sure that the policy of allowing a man to dictate how his property shall be applied hundreds of years after he is dead is altogether a sound one, but it is a miserable trifling with the elementary principles of equity, to acknowledge the right, and then pretend that the object of the endowment was directly opposite to that mentioned in the will of the founder.

Article 49 of the Charity Commissioners' scheme is to the following effect :A sum of not less than £150 per annum is to be applied in maintaining scholarships tenable at the school of the foundation, the benefit to consist in each case of free education and payment in money at the rate of £10 a year. These scholarships are to be competed for in the first place by boys who have been educated for at least three years at any public elementary school in the parish of Greenwich at which instruction

is given in accordance with the doctrines of the Church of England, priority being given to the sons of naval seamen, watermen, fishermen, and inhabitants of the parish of Greenwich; and failing a sufficient number of candidates with one or other of these qualifications, the competition to be by boys who are sons of poor inhabitants of the parish of Greenwich, and have been educated for at least one year at any public elementary school in the parish.

This is the alternative plan proposed by Mr. Lucraft :-

(a) That the competition for the scholarships referred to in Article 49 of the draft scheme should be open at once to all children who have been educated at least three years in any public elementary school in the parish of Greenwich, and not confined exclusively to children who have been educated in Church of England schools.

(b) That of the ten nominated members of the governing body, at least two shall be appointed by the School Board for London.

Mrs. Surr having very needlessly raised again the question of corporal punishment by proposing that it should be altogether abolished in girls and infants' schools, Mr. Lucraft carried the previous question against her by 26 to 4 votes. Mrs. Westlake was found on the side of the majority. It is discovered that abolishing the cane brings with it expulsion from school as an alternative punishment, besides other objectionable modes, as standing a long time in painful positions on forms, staying in after the other scholars have been dismissed, spoiling the handwriting by being required to write a word or a passage so many times.

Mr. Firth then moved a resolution that the action of the Education Department with regard to a school at Chelsea "has been calculated seriously to prejudice the interests of public education." It was felt, however, that a motion of this kind would simply irritate, and not frighten the heads of the Department, and so it was somewhat clumsily withdrawn. This plan of showing the teeth without daring to bite will do the board no good either with the Department or the general public.

At the meeting of the London Board on Nov. 6th Mr. Francis Peek again raised the question of corporal punishment in moving the following preposterous resolutions :—

Should any pupil-teacher be found guilty of striking a child, he or she, in the first instance, shall be fined five shillings, and, in case of a repetition of the offence, his or her indentures shall be cancelled.

The above to be the rule of the board, subject to confirmation, in each case, by the School Management Committee.

That, where it is proved that any assistant master or mistress has broken the rules of the board by striking a child he or she shall be subject, in the first instance, to a fine of twenty shillings, and, if again guilty of the same misconduct, he or she shall be dismissed.

It is remarkable how bodies of this kind seem anxious to exercise magisterial powers. It is a fine to-day; it may be a night in a lock-up to-morrow. The Education Department has usurped judicial fuuctions, and brands Her Majesty's subjects as guilty of immorality and dishonesty

in an official publication which is presented to Parliament by Her Majesty's command. And now we have the excellent Mr. Peek wishing to set up a Court of Justice in the meeting-room of the school board, and fine this boy five shillings and that young man a sovereign. If either should claim to be heard by counsel we might have Mr. Poland for prosecution and Mr. G. Lewis for the defence. It is only right to say that, though the proposal was treated with far more respect than it deserved, it was generally scouted, and at the end of the discussion sent into a deep place of the sea by the following amendment: "That the proposed resolution be referred to the School Management Committee as an open question for consideration and report." We advise the School Management Committee to adopt on this question that policy of the Indian Viceroys which is termed "masterly inactivity."

At the meeting of the London Board on November 13th the following pitiful wrangle took place. We give the condensed report in the School Board Chronicle without further comment :

A deputation of managers from the Hunter-street Board School, Southwark, attended the board, and were introduced by the Rev. Dr. Maguire and Mr. Heald. A memorial was presented which complained that Mr. Corris, the head master of the Hunter-street School, did not possess "that degree of patience necessary for the management of such a school," and requested his removal to some other school. No fault was found with the teaching powers of Mr. Corris, but it was thought that his removal had become advisable.

It was stated that a sub-committee of the School Management Committee had investigated certain charges which had been brought against Mr. Corris, and the charges for the most part had not been proved; nevertheless, the committee thought it best for all parties concerned that Mr. Corris should be transferred to another school.

Several questions were put to the deputation by members of the board. The managers earnestly requested the immediate dismissal of Mr. Corris, and complained that the sub-committee had not taken them (the managers) sufficiently into their confidence. One of the managers testified that he had witnessed acts of unnecessary harshness towards the children on the part of Mr. Corris, which showed him to be unfit for a teacher.

Dr. Maguire moved that the School Management Committee be requested to facilitate the transfer of Mr. Corris to another school before the end of the present

year.

Mr. Heller moved the "previous question" as an amendment. The sub-committee had fully investigated the whole case, and it was a pity that personal matters of this kind should be made public. He deprecated the reception of deputations on small matters of school management.

The Rev. J. Sinclair supported the amendment, and Miss Taylor the motion of Dr. Maguire.

At the end of a discussion which occupied two hours the "previous question" was carried by 20 votes against 16.

The deputation then withdrew.

The Ipswich School Board have decided not to adopt Dr. Richardson's Temperance Reader for the use of their schools.

The following racy paragraph in the report of the Penrith School Board shows that the antagonism which we have before remarked between the new body and the old magistracy has not died out :—

THE MAGISTRATES AND THE BOARD.

The Attendance Officer presented his usual report giving a summary of the work done during the month.

Mr. Tyson was sorry to find that the magistrates upon the bench did not pay greater deference to the chairman of the board than they appeared to do. Dr. Wickham attended all the board meetings, and was cognizant of the merits of each case before it was submitted to the magistrates. He thought the bench ought to accept the evidence the board gave before that of the greatest wretch and the most infamous beggar in the parish.

The Chairman: As soon as the school board cases come on I retire from the bench. I think it would not be right for me to sit in judgment upon my own cases.

Mr. Tyson said that out of 3,700 cases presented by the London School Board only three were dismissed. He thought it was unfair that the board ought to be treated as it was treated by the Penrith bench. If a man was caught smelling after the "scut" of a rabbit he would perhaps get a month's imprisonment.

The following decision is the result of the united wisdom of the school board of a small Yorkshire parish. Perhaps we ought to support them in their resolution, but they seem to have lost sight of St. Paul's valuable observation, that the law was not made for righteous men. The recalcitrant manufacturer doubtless means to educate his child; it is out of regard for his child's interest that he declines to send her a long distance at a tender age by herself. The best way to make compulsory education odious to the community at large is to act as this Yorkshire Board are acting :—

SILSDEN (YORKSHIRE).

October 10.-Mr. W. Weatherhead, chairman, presiding.

The Clerk mentioned several delinquents, whereupon arose a long discussion about one Wincey, manufacturer, Bolton Road, refusing to send his child, between five and six years old, to the Aire View Infant School because, he thought it too distant for her to travel alone.

It was the unanimous opinion of the board that all should be treated alike, rich or poor, and consequently instructions were given to the clerk that if the gentleman referred to still refused to send his child, after having a few days' notice, he be prosecuted.

We print the following letter, which is addressed to the Editor of the School Board Chronicle, as it shows that though the British citizen loves his pet denomination he loves his pocket more. The few country boards that have been formed, instead of showing to their neighbours the more excellent way of managing educational matters, exist as wholesome scarecrows, and have strengthened the denominational system in country parishes immensely. Voluntary schools in country parishes are now, for the first time in their existence, popular :

Tetford, October, 1878,

Sir,-It seems a misapprehension exists with regard to the school board question at Tetford. Permit a few words to appear from some ratepayers who live on the spot, and who have considered both sides of the question. It is only fair to Mr. Skipworth (the rector) and the managers of the voluntary school that the truth should be stated. It is not true that the voluntary (National) school has failed to do the educational work of the district, or that it failed for want of funds. Any unpopularity,

as far as it may have existed, with regard to that school was only caused by the board opening (not taking over) a school on their own account, and charging one penny a week less. Without showing any spirit of antagonism, the managers of the voluntary school have bravely held their ground in the interest of the ratepayers; and it is a great mistake to suppose that the managers of that school "made a show all at once of providing sufficient accommodation in order to prevent the establishment of a board school." Nothing has been done since the school board question was talked about, for nothing was required to be done; it had all been done before. The Wesleyan school was given up some years ago for want of funds, and at that time the friends of the voluntary school decided to enlarge their (the National) school sufficiently for the district, subscribing liberally for the purpose. The additions and alterations were all completed and in full use before the end of 1874-about two years before the first mention of a school board in the place, and some little time before the death of the late rector. We consider the voluntary school quite equal to all our purposes. A board school is not needed here; and if it had been the matter would have been taken up by those who have the interests of the parish at heart, and who ought to have a say in school matters. We hope, sir, you will in justice give us a hearing. The school is abundantly large enough for all the children within the district, as is well known to every one in the place. We may add, the previous master (who was here for 10 or 11 years) and the present one are most able and popular teachers. We consider that the board has "conspicuously failed' " to do its duty. Though it quickly got a code of by-laws sanctioned," it has not yet begun to put them in force.

66

We would also inform you, sir, that the school opened by the board in opposition to instructions from the Education Department was closed some five months ago. It is scarcely likely any attempt will be made to reopen it.-We are, sir, yours obediently, F. S. DYMOKE, landowner.

ED. SHADFORD, builder (Wesleyan).

ANTONY SHAW, farmer.

EDWARD SUTTON, farmer.

WILLIAM GOULSBRA, farmer.

JOHN SANDERSON, farmer (Wesleyan).

MOSES GOODYEAR, innkeeper.

GEORGE TAYLOR, market gardener.

ROBERT BROCKLEBANK, brickmaker and farmer (Wesleyan).

J. D. SHADFORD, bricklayer.

HENRY JOHNSON, farmer.

WILLIAM HOLDERNESS, innkeeper and carpenter.

WILLIAM FORMAN, labourer.

GEORGE BROWN, innkeeper and gardener.

CHARLES BERRY, general dealer.

WM. WATTAM, gardener.

F. A. BERRY, grocer and provision dealer.

P.S.-Very many others would have signed, but these are sufficient.

The Croydon Board have decided to dismiss a child from school, and then summon his father (euphonistically termed the "parent") for not sending him. The rough English common-sense of our courts of justice may not see the reason of all this. Could not the Croydon board set up a washstand with rather a hard flesh-brush, and have these dirty children scrubbed? But we are anticipating, and must refer our readers to the subjoined paragraph for an explanation of our meaning :

DIRTY CHILDREN.

The School Attendance Committee advised with respect to dirty children that a certain parent should be required to attend before them, in order that he might be warned to send his child to school in a fit state, and that the head teacher be

« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »