2. Secondary or Intermediate Schools.

It will be remembered that when the Education Act, 1877, was passed, it was pointed out as one of its defects that there was no provision for the maintaining of secondary schools. Some had been in existence under Education Boards; others had received grants of land and money from the Provincial Government for their maintenance. Was the State to abandon intermediate schools to private competition, and yet look after university education and primary schools? This illogical position was pointed out, and ultimately it was resolved that Grammar or High Schools should be founded in certain districts—these schools to be under the control of Boards, partly nominated by the Governor—and open to the inspection of someone appointed by the Government. I am glad to be able to state that so far the need of having intermediate schools has been recognised, and that liberal endowments have been set aside for their maintenance—a principle similar to what I have been advocating as to the collegiate institutions has been adopted, and that is, that our Grammar or High Schools should have, to repeat my phrase, certain feeding grounds. For example, one has been founded in Invercargill, one in Dunedin, one in Oamaru, one in Timaru, one in Ashburton, one in Christchurch. In the North Island, there is one in Wellington, one in Wanganui, one in New Plymouth, one at Auckland, and one at the Thames, and I yet hope to see others founded and endowed. By having these schools placed at regular intervals and in centres of population, due provision will be made for the advancement of intermediate education, and feeders for the universities created. No doubt the district High School provided for by the Education Act will perform a useful duty, but whenever there is population sufficient to warrant it, there should be a separation of the primary from the secondary schools. Specilisation of function is required. I may add that in both Otago and Canterbury parts of the Secondary School Reserves are still unallotted, so that somewhere in the interior of Otago, and somewhere in the north of Canterbury, grammar schools can be founded.

That the Government should provide and superintend secondary education, it is not necessary, I hope, to contend. Mr. page 14 Matthew Arnold^* and others have pointed out to English people and Dr. Donaldson to the Scotch wherein in this respect the educational systems of England and Scotland are defective. In Germany in 1875, there were 1,045 secondary or high-class schools; students, 196,264; professors, 11,707; libraries contain ing 1,'926,333 volumes. In France, says Mr. Arnold, there were in 1876, 81 great secondary schools of the first class, and 252 of the second—all of them of a public character, all of them under inspection, all of them offering guarantees of the capacity of their teaching staff; and in these schools a total of 79,241 scholars. England, alas! is far behind France. Then if we go to Germany, we find that one person out of every 300 has obtained a good secondary education. It must be recognised that without good secondary schools, our University cannot hope to prosper; that without secondary schools and university training, New Zealand cannot hope to have men of eminence. Before we can get a plant of rare excellence, we must have a big seed bed; so before many men of genius arise, culture must be widely diffused. In our secondary schools, I think the State should see—

1st.	That the buildings are suitable.
2nd.	That there is an efficient staff.
3rd.	That the teaching is efficient.

This the State, considering the endowments granted, has a right to demand, even were it to yield up every other control, such as having a certain number of nominees on the Board of Management, and if the endowments set apart for secondary schools, and the other educational endowments now held by various religious associations were properly utilised, I believe in a few years every child that could pass a requisite examination for admission to secondary schools could and should have a free grammar school education. All that is wanted to accomplish this is the careful management of the education reserves in this colony.

At present the secondary schools are not in a satisfactory state. They have been divorced, so to speak, from the primary schools. Until there is a proper system of gradation—the primary leading to the secondary, the secondary to the University—our educational system will not be complete. To obtain this end every effort should be made. First, I think we should begin by insisting that every secondary school should, once a year at least, be inspected by some inspector appointed by the Minister of Education. A provision to this effect is inserted in several of the High and Grammar School Acts, but it should be applicable to all. Second, some steps should be page 15 taken to coordinate the primary and secondary schools and the University. I know that there are difficulties in the way, but there are always, it seems to me, difficulties in everything educational. If our educational system is to be successful—difficulties or no difficulties—this must be accomplished. Each grammar school should have a classic and a modern side. So far as the modern side is concerned, a pupil should be able to pass at once from the primary school to the modern side at an age of, say, eleven or twelve. Then, as to the classic side, he should do so when he is perhaps seven or eight; or, if he ever attended a District High School or learned Latin—when he is nine or ten.

With the intermediate school, guarded by examination—none admitted unless a certain scholarship were shown, and the work of the primary made to fit into the secondary up to a certain point—I believe not only would the intermediate schools be benefitted, but the stimulus would do good to our district schools.

But I must pass on to the (3) Primary Schools.

During the past twelve months the new Education Act has been getting into working order; and generally, I may say, great progress has been attained. I believe the standard of education has been generally raised; that our schools are becoming more efficient, and the teaching profession is being better recognised. One of the most important things done has been the classification of teachers. And first as to the principle on which it has proceeded. Whatever we may think of the manner in which the principle has been applied, we must, I consider, admit that the rules laid down for classification are sound. Two things are about equally placed: (a), the scholarship of the teacher; (b), the teaching ability and experience of the teacher. I state frankly that in some respects I think blunders have been made in applying the principle. But it is a great step gained if we can admit that the rules for the classification are sound. That is more than half the battle. And now as to their application. If the Inspector-General had wished to perform his duties in a perfunctory manner, he would not have attempted to carry out a universal classification. He might, for example, if he desired to live at ease from worry, have said, I shall keep the old classification in the present teaching staff, and I shall provide that schoolmasters entering the service for the first time must be re-classified. If he had done this he would have given himself little trouble and less care. He has, however, seen that, to perfect the education system, classification was necessary; and were it not made thorough now, it might take ten or more years before there was such a thing as unity in the classification. And I repeat, all honour to him for his boldness. Now I have said I do not think the classification in page 16 its personal details, in some few instances, has been successful. No new machine works smoothly at first. And the classification promulgated is not a Medo-Persian edict. Teachers whose scholarship has been overlooked, may have that which was overlooked reconsidered; and so far as teaching ability and experience are concerned, the rules are so framed that a teacher may obtain a higher grade.

And whilst I am dealing with the classification of teachers let me make one or two remarks about the nurseries for teachers—the Normal Schools:—It seems to me that in the training of teachers two tilings should be aimed at, viz., utilising the University teaching, and paying due attention to instruction in the art of teaching. In order that this may be done, care should be taken that Normal Schools are not multiplied beyond at least the number of institutions where the higher education is taught. To obtain the necessary esprit de corps amongst the students, a large district must look to one school as its Normal School. Create many Normal Schools and you will most probably have inefficiency in their management. Already provision is being made for Professors of Education in some Scotch Universities, and I hope we may yet see in connection with our University, a Professor whose function will be to lecture on method and to lay down some of the first principles that should guide a teacher in pursuing his calling.

Then, as regards the examination of students at the Normal Schools, and also of teachers, care should be taken in preparing the examination papers, that, for example, the geography paper of class E should not be more difficult than the geography paper of D. This can only be done by one person carefully supervising the whole examination papers, and one examiner taking one subject in all divisions. This is, however, a minor detail that I need not refer to.

Another subject that requires some notice is the agitation for the introduction of the Kinder-Garten system. A sketch of this system has been published here by a lady who has always interested herself in education—Miss Dalrymple—and it is not necessary for me to do more than refer to her sketch, and to Mr. Joseph Payne's visit to German schools for information on the subject. So far as I know there is no real Kinder-Garten school in this Colony. One or two infant schools adopt some of Froebel's method, but none carry it out as Froebel desired it to be carried out. In Germany and America these schools have been a great success; and I am in hopes that in Dunedin some effort will be made to start one. Prof. Payne recommends that from three to six, the children should be wholly taught on Froebel's method, but that from six to nine some instruction in reading and arithmetic in the ordinary method should be given, page 17 so that a child introduced from a Kinder-Garten to an ordinary school should not find its new school entirely strange. I shall make two quotations from Prof. Payne's Book—one showing the principle on which the Kinder-Garten is founded; and another, to state his impression of a well-taught Kinder-Garten school:—

"The purpose of the games and occupations of the Kinder-Garten is the harmonious development and cultivation of all the intellectual and bodily powers of the child. They lead him to become conscious of those powers, and to make use of them; to exercise the eye in the observation (Anschauung) of suitable forms; the hand in works which he performs as plays; the ear, through simple melodies which delight him; the understanding, through stories, narratives, and games which rouse his attention, and fix in his mind accurate (Vorstellungen) and general concepts (Begriffe). Lastly, in his intercourse with his little companions, he learns to become happy, sociable and peaceable." (Note to pp. 10 & 11).

I now come to speak of some demands that have been made for an alteration of "The Education Act, 1877." The demands have been of two kinds:—

1. It is said the machinery of the Act is not perfect.

School committees are elected on a bad principle. Their functions are not ample enough. I do not believe there is much in these objections. The method of cumulative voting was designed to allow minorities to be represented on the school boards. It was felt that education had so long been allied to religion that the tendency would be, by mere majority voting, to make school committees consist wholly of the dominant sect or sects. To allow the sects numerically weak, some voice in education, the cumulative vote was devised, and I cannot say that the school committees now elected are worse in any respect than those chosen under the Otago Education Ordinance. No doubt in populous places the method of obtaining the vote is not very satisfactory. It has one advantage—it is cheap, and if we spent £20, £30, or £50 in taking the vote, the £20, £30, or £50 could be better applied in being expended in the school. I can remember the time when, in Dunedin, School Committees were elected and re-elected, not more than perhaps twenty persons page 18 being present; now we see several hundreds at the meeting. This does not show that the interest in education has flagged, because the School Committees have nothing to do; and it is to be remembered that now the Board is chosen by and represents the committees.

The only power taken from the Committees is the appointment of the schoolmasters, and I am not prepared to say that this is not an advantage. To allow a good teacher some chance of rising in his profession, the Board that appoints him should have more than one school under its charge. If committees elect without reference to the Board, the teacher is not, I think, placed in such an independent position. All that is wanted is that the Board and Committee strive to make the Act work harmoniously and for the benefit of education. If that were attempted, I do not think there would be any one found grumbling about the Education Act provisions. I believe the Committees have not yet risen to their duty in carrying out the Act. It was not meant that the Committee was to do nothing. If a district wishes a good teacher, why should they not raise amongst themselves either some addition to the teacher's salary or see that the school-house and the schoolmaster's residence were the best buildings in the district. Districts subsidise doctors and clergymen, and is the teacher not as necessary? The Committees should feel it to be their duty to help themselves. I am afraid we do not do half what we should do as Committees for Education. Just consider what some towns do. Think what Boston has done for education—paid away in school buildings nearly £750,000. Hamburg spent on one building £120,000—not for a town hall, but for a school, and a trades museum. So if our Committees had an enthusiasm for education we would not have it to be said that our school buildings were defective, and we could do nothing unless Parliament voted money. I have said over and over again that I regret that for erecting schools the Road Boards, County, and City Councils should not have power to give aid. A penny in the pound on the value of all property in Otago would erect more buildings than are at present required.

2. Another demand has been made for an alteration of the Act, and this demand has assumed two forms, though in fact it is one. It is that our national system should be made sectarian—that is, that our system must be so framed as to allow religious and secular instruction to be given together. The one form is what is known as Mr. Curtis' Bill; the other, the introduction of bible-reading in the public schools.

Mr. Curtis' Bill allows a separate district to be formed so soon as twenty-five householders desire it. They are to erect their own school buildings, but otherwise the school is to be aided page 19 from the general revenue. The books used are to be approved of by the Board, and during five hours a day nothing but secular instruction is to be given. The Committee, moreover, is to appoint the teachers. This Bill would therefore do this: It would allow each sect to have its own school, and it would create a largo number of small and I believe inefficient schools; and, above all, it would allow the schools to become places where peculiar doctrines of religion were taught. It is, however, very valuable for those who advocate national education to find that this Bill pleases the denominationalists. Those who advocate the handing over of the education of the young to the clergy—for really denominational schools amount to that—have hitherto asserted that it is impossible to separate religious from secular instruction. They have said the two are inseparable, and if you separate them the secular education becomes godless. Now, Mr. Curtis' Bill provides that for five hours per day the instruction is to be purely secular, or, to use the denominationalists phrase, "godless." The question really is, shall we allow our State-supported schools to be under religious sects as such or not? The denominationalists cannot hereafter say that secular instruction is inseparable from religious instruction. They have admitted it can be separated, and if it can, why then should an unsectarian state have anything to do with the inculcation of religion. I am aware that some think secular instruction must take second place. To quote an ecclesiastical document, it is said—"In popular schools the doctrines of religion—religiosa doctrina—ought to have the first place and be dominant—dominari—so that every other learning should seem as if foreign or accidental—veluti adventitial appareant. The demands made by one religious sect may be found summarized in propositions xlv and xlvii of the syllabus issued prior to the meeting of the Ecumenical Council.

I do not know if any will assert now-a-days that it is the duty of the State to teach religion. Clearly if it be, the State must make up its mind to teach some one religion—unless, indeed, all religions are equally true—and if it teaches one religion, I do not see a logical halting-ground short of a State page 20 Church, and something perhaps worse. Nor can I see if it be the duty of the State, to either teach or see taught religion, why the various religious organisations should not be subsidised, and their active co-operation secured by the Government. To calmly state what is involved in the position of the State teaching religion is, I think, its best refutation. Happily, in this Colony, the refutation is, I think, unnecessary. I assume that there are none here who would assert that it is the duty of the State to teach a certain religion or to provide by money grants, that all the varied religions in our midst should be taught.

I pass on, therefore, to the second branch. The Bible is to be introduced because of the intellectual training that it affords. Is this the reason why the Bible should be introduced into the schools? I do not suppose anyone would contend that children could not be intellectually trained without the Bible. They cannot study it in the original. If it be the English in which it is written that is desired to be studied, other English works could be found which would acquaint them with the beauty and grammar of their mother tongue. Is it the sacred history that would train them? I am afraid without a theological explanation that history will seem meaningless. But are we prepared to make the Bible like other books to be read for mere intellectual training? I suspect doing so would shock the feelings of many in our community. And I assert that mere children cannot be got to appreciate the beauty of the poetry or drama of the Bible. Minds have to be matured before poetry is appreciated, or even prose literature understood. But that the Bible is not needed as an intellectual gymnastic is, I think, further shown by the fact that it is unused for this purpose in our grammar or high schools and in our universities. For example, I have already alluded to the discussion as to whether there was to be a Professor of English Literature and History, or a Professor of Moral Philosophy and Political Economy in our University. If the Bible is suitable for intellectual training, why not have had a Professor of Biblical exegesis? But moreover, there could be little intellectual training of children in making them read, parrot-like, a Book, denying to them any explanation of the things mentioned in it—the explanation of the Creation, of the Deluge, or of the many chronological difficulties that are so easily reconciled; and if with note and comment, then I am afraid we must have the views of some particular religious sect as the explanation of that which is deemed requiring explanation. Dr. Pusey and Dr. Cumming would not, I fear, agree in explaining the Prophecy of Daniel.

It will be said, however, that it is for the third reason, for page 21 its moral training, that the Bible is to be read. I again ask, with or without comment? I will assume that it is without comment. If so, how can the pupils by merely reading a book, a chapter a day, get any idea of its moral purpose. I assume that there is no teacher that ever, before any audience, would read every passage in the Bible. I pass over passages that may be deemed objectionable, and I take one apparently unobjectionable. I suppose a child was reading King David's history, and he came to the incident—Absalom's revolt—and read 2 Sam., xvi., 7 v., how one Shimei, a Benjamite, met David and called him names. The words being—"Come out, come out, thou bloody-man, and thou man of Belial. The Lord hath returned upon thee all the blood of the house of Saul, in whose stead thou hast reigned; and the Lord hath delivered the kingdom into the hands of Absalom thy son; and behold thou art taken in thy mischief because thou art a bloody man." And he reads on and finds, that for this talk, the guards wished to seize Shimei and kill him. He would think a peculiar kind of society reigned in Israel. Were Shimei to act in Dunedin as he acted before David, he would be heavily punished were he fined 10s. and costs. Then David forgave him, saying—"Let him alone, and let him curse, for the Lord hath bidden him." The child would, no doubt, think it was very kind of David to forgive Shimei. But suppose the child read on, and he came to 1 Kings II., 8-10 v., and he found that, as recorded in Kings, the last words of David were to kill Shimei, speaking to Solomon thus:—"Now, therefore, hold him not guiltless, for thou art a wise man, and knowest what thou oughtest to do with him; but his hoar head bring thou down to the grave with blood. So David slept with his fathers, and was buried in the city of David." Would he not, without note or comment, be led to believe that David harboured revenge? And as there is nothing said in the Bible that what David did was wrong, a child would assume that harbouring revenge was not wrong. I need not put the question, is it a good moral training to teach children that people should be slain who call others bad names.

I have not touched on what we read in Joshua, or Judges, or the Books of Samuel, etc. Even in the Psalms there are things that, if read without note or comment, may have anything but a good moral influence. For example, let us read that beautifully plaintive Psalm, the 137th:—"By the rivers of Babylon where we sat down, yea we wept when we remembered Zion, we hanged our harps upon the willows in the midst thereof." are we not shocked, if there is no explanation, at the last verse—"O daughters of Babylon, who ought to be destroyed; happy shall he be that rewardeth thee as thou hast served us, Happy shall he be that taketh and dasheth thy page 22 little ones against the stones;" or, as put in the Scottish version:—

"Yea, happy surely shall he be,
Thy tender little ones,
Who shall lay hold upon and them
Shall dash against the stones."

Killing little children, by dashing them against stones, is re-revolting to us.

But it will be said that the reading of the New Testament would be unobjectionable. Does anyone mean to say that children reading it without note or comment will understand it? And if they do not understand it, can it morally train them? No doubt, so far as the maxims in the grand Sermon of the Mount and other passages are concerned, they may be learned and obeyed. But these maxims are now taught, and can be taught, without reading the Bible. If we compare Matthew with Luke, we find that in some things there is a disagreement. Is the teacher to show how or why they do not agree? There are many things at least appearing difficult is the teacher to explain?

Suppose it is asked why Paul in all his preaching did not found his belief that Jesus was Messiah on his supernatural birth, but on his miraculous resurrection, is the teacher to remain dumb? And I believe there have been more comments on the ninth chapter of Romans than a child could learn if he spent his whole school-hours in poring over the volumes.

But I will assume it is with note and comment. What then? Are all the passages read to be explained? I presume so; and how? Is there one explanation for each difficulty? Unfortuuately, the various religious bodies have not yet been able to agree on one explanation as the correct one. Different sects have different explanations. And what is a teacher to do? But moreover, can a teacher explain the Bible without being trained so to do? Now, there is no provision in our Normal School nor in our University where he may get the requisite training. Almost all Churches say that before one can expound the Scriptures a certain prior training is necessary. Some have to go through a four or even seven year's course before they are thoroughly equipped. And remember, it would, I think, work great evil if one explanation was given in the school and another in the church. Besides, the explanations are theological, and the State would have to at once teach one kind of religion—and possibly, before a schoolmaster was elected, he would have to prove to the board or the committee his fitness to perform this part of his work. In fact, Bible reading leads logically up to Bible teaching, and Bible teaching means teaching religion,

And I ask, in all earnestness, is it wise to cause this strife of sects about our schools? If those who think Bible reading necessary, would spend as much of their time in teaching the Bible as they do in agitating that schoolmasters should teach it, I think they would better carry out their views.

I ask, why should the State interfere with Bible reading? It is said we are a Christian nation, and that the Bible is recognised by the State. I deny both propositions. As a nation we have nothing to do with religion. Every religion has equal rights before the law. None are supported by the State, and our highest offices of State can be held by men not professing the Christian religion. We have had a Jew Premier. Of course, in a sense, we are a Christian nation, namely, in the sense that a majority of the citizens are Christians, but in no other sense. No Christian, as such, has any peculiar privileges; and no religion, as such, is recognised as having any privileges by the State. Indeed were the State to act otherwise, there would neither be perfect toleration, nor perfect equality before the law. One argument used to prove that the nation is Christian, and recognises the Bible, is this:—Do we not use Bibles in our Courts of Justice? Are people not sworn on the Bible? No Scotchman or Presbyterian would use such an argument as that. In Scotch Courts of Justice there is no "kissing of the book," and were any Scotchman or Presbyterian here present to attend any of the Courts to-morrow, and say that he desired to be sworn in the Scotch form—and that was binding on his conscience—the Bible would not be used. Nay, moreover, the State only recognises that which is binding on a man's conscience. It he says he declines to be sworn, and makes an affirmation instead, his evidence will still be accepted. If he be a Mahomedan, he will be sworn on the Koran, and if he hails from China he has a choice of three oaths—he may blow out a match, crack a saucer, or cut a cock's head off. I hope we have heard the last of this assertion, that the State recognises the Bible because it is used in our Courts, and that it will not again be said, if we shut out our Bible from our schools we must banish it from our "halls of justice, and swear the witnesses on their honour."

But granting it makes for righteousness, still that is no reason for having it in our public schools.

It is said that it gives a sanction to morality. It is not—I think cannot be denied—that morality can be taught without this sanction. It is, however, argued, that without this sanction the moral teaching is imperfect. Now, what is the meaning of sanction? Can you teach children anything of moral philosophy? I assert no. It is only when a certain age is reached, and a certain intellectual stature attained, that the position of the various schools of morality can be understood; and young children cannot understand such an abstract thing as sanction.

And we know that there was a lofty and ideal morality—"that of the philosophy of the Porch—which was associated with "both Pantheism and Materialism in their crudest forms." (See Pollock's article, Marcus Aurelius, and the Stoic Philosophy, in the January number of Mind).

Besides, if the intuitionalists are correct, the sanction of morality is within, not without. If it is further said that you must teach the children that the Bible is God's word, and therefore is their moral guide. This necessitates reading with note and comment, and implies religious teaching, for the question of inspiration must be dealt with. Suppose the teacher is a follower of the late Prof. Maurice, would his view of Inspiration be deemed satisfactory to those who agreed with Dr. Candlish's criticism on Professor Maurice's Theological Essays? Even amongst the Bishops of one Church there is diversity of opinion—such a divergence that one Bishop will not allow another to preach in his diocese because he considers the Bishops' views of the Pentateuch are unsound and detestable. Again, are we driven to admit that before Bible reading can be had in our public schools, teachers must have a prior theological training. What would a Jew or freethinker be expected to say of the New Testament? Could we ask either of them to teach that it was God's word, and therefore the only sanction of morality? Even those who advocate Bible reading see some of the difficulties with which it is surrounded, for they generously offer that the permission for Bible reading should be hedged round with a "conscience clause." This signifies that our schools are for part of the day sectarian institutions; and necessarily the honourable profession of schoolmaster is closed to every honest man who does accept a particular religious belief. In Scotland, where it was, in 1861, permitted to those who had not signed the Confession of Faith, and the Longer and Shorter Catechisms, to become Parish Schoolmasters, it was, at the same time, carefully page 25 enacted that no teaching in a Parish School was to be contrary to these documents.

There is just one other statement that has been made that I think it necessary to refer to: If you shut out the Bible from the schools you are, it is said, giving way to the secularists and freethinkers. I deny this entirely. A secularist or freethinker has no objection to the reading of the Bible any more than to the translation of Homer's Iliad or Anacreon's Odes. He, however, wishes his explanations to be given—just as the Roman Catholic desires the Douay Bible to be read, if the instruction in it is superintended by the priest.

There is one aspect in which, I think, this religious question should be viewed—we need specialisation in education. In our University we have one Professor of Classics, and another for Mathematics; in our High School one master teaches Science, and another English; in our Normal School there is also a division of labour—and the better taught the school the more carefully will this division of labour be carried out. "Why, it takes more than a dozen men to make a pin! And is the full development of a child more easy? Now, let us apply this principle that is recognised in education, and in all our arts and manufactures, to this so-called religious difficulty. Surely if the State looks after one branch of education, the church organisations and the parents may look after another. For what purpose do our church organisations exist? Is it not the spread of their religious opinions? And have we not seen noble lives freely sacrificed to carry these opinions to all parts of the globe? The church organisation is still vital and still militant. Let it be known that the State recognises the principle of the division of labour, and I have no doubt that whatever religious instruction is necessary for the youth will be given by these bodies who spend time and energy in carrying the Christian religion to heathen lands.

I have brought before you the various questions that seem to me to agitate the educational world at the present time. I cannot hope that the views I have expressed will be agreed to by all present; but I do believe that the true function of this Institute is to courageously face the difficulties that surround the Education system. If we, as members, do so, perhaps we will find that it is distance that makes them look so formidable, and that as we approach them, they melt away and get dissolved in the azure of a calm critical inspection.